January 21, 2003



The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 7:04 p.m. in the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC.  Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Jack Lynch, Todd Thompson, Walter Carpenter and Mike Cooper.  Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; Josh Freeman, Planner, Autumn Radcliff, Planner and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary.  Board member Kevin Keefe was absent.


Approval of Minutes.  Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order. He introduced County Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, who will be serving as liaison to the Planning Board.  He asked for the approval of the December 17, 2002, minutes.  Mike Cooper made a motion to approve the minutes and Jack Lynch seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.


Adjustment of Agenda.  Chairman Pearce indicated that Item 5, Status Report on Subdivision Plan Review Issues, would be moved after Item 11, in the interest of time.


Staff Reports.  There were no Staff Reports.




Review of Conditional Use Permit Application # CU-02-15 for Proposed Summer Camp at the Former Camp Riley at Lake Osceola (on South Lakeside Drive in an R-20 Zoning District) – Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman, Applicants.  Ms. Smith stated that since the Board’s last meeting, Daniel Gurley, Zoning Administrator has resigned and has taken a job in Washington, D.C. and therefore she stated that she would present this item.  Ms. Smith stated that this item was tabled at the last Planning Board meeting in order for the applicants to be present to discuss any comments and issues that arose.  She stated that Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman submitted this application for a conditional use permit to operate a camp at Lake Osceola on a 12.31-acre parcel and that it is located on Lakeside Drive and is surrounded by Bonner Street, Old South Carolina Avenue and Wright Street.  She stated that this application is perhaps familiar to the Board as there have been at least two prior conditional use permits for camp operators.  She stated that the most recent one was Camp Riley.  She indicated that she supplied copies of the two prior conditional use permits as well as a letter from the Henderson County Environmental Health Department for each Board member.  Ms. Smith stated that the subject property is in a R-20 district and she indicated that camps are a conditional use.  She stated that the Board of Adjustment is the approval authority, but that Board has asked for the Planning Board’s recommendation as to what the applicants are allowed to do regarding the conditional use permit.  She stated that the original application had initially requested a day and a summer camp and she said that the applicants clarified this in their application form, which they will discuss with Board members.  Ms. Smith indicated that what she could distinguish from the application was that the applicants want to operate a day camp, which would be open for approximately 10 weeks, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.  She said that their narrative also refers to summer campers, which will be organized groups that might be coming to the Hendersonville area.  In addition, she stated that the application notes that the applicants wish to rent the camps to groups or organizations for organized recreation.  Ms. Smith indicated that she will need clarification on these issues from the applicants.  She said that the applicant has supplied documents this evening regarding the advertisement of their camp, Camp Nowhere, specifying the activities and schedule of the camp.  She said the Zoning Ordinance defines a camp as including those “organized camp establishments which provide food or lodging accommodations of tents or cabins for groups of children or adults engaged in organized recreation or educational programs.”  The term “camp” shall include, but shall not be limited to, camps with special program emphasis, such as horseback riding, conservation, music and sports.  The term “camp” shall not include manufactured home parks, migrant labor camps or recreation vehicle parks.  She stated that the R-20 district has certain setbacks that apply and in this case they would apply to any new buildings or any of the pre-existing buildings that might need to be replaced, if the applicants were going to expand those buildings from what is already there.  She stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not contain any specific standards for camps, so anything that the Board of Adjustment and that the Planning Board will have to look at, is governed by the general requirements and specific requirements that will apply to all conditional use permits.  She stated that the general requirements are that the use will not adversely affect the health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and that the use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or public improvements in the neighborhood.  Ms. Smith stated that in addition to the findings that the Board of Adjustment will need to make, there are also specific requirements that the Board will have to evaluate as to whether the applicants have provided sufficient information, where applicable, for the following:  Ingress/Egress Issues, Off street parking, loading, utilities

buffering, playgrounds and open spaces, access ways, lighting and buildings and structures.

She stated that Mr. Gurley had drafted the memo to the Planning Board and supplied comments on those particular issues as well as some others.  Mr. Allison stated that what the Board has received from the applicant, does not indicate that they have applied for an on-site sewage system, so he feels that everything the Board discusses at tonight’s meeting, if they can not get the on-site sewage approved, the camp will not happen.  Ms. Smith stated that she expects that to be a condition that the Planning Board might want to propose to the Board of Adjustment.  Ms. Smith stated that the applicant might have something to say regarding the letter from the Henderson County Environmental Health Department. 


At this time the applicants, Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman spoke regarding the application.  Mr. Hallberg stated that with regard to the letter from the Health Department, he said that he had just received this tonight and indicated that he did not know anything about it.  He said that they have been down to the Health Department on several occasions and that the Health Department indicated that the septic system would have to be inspected.  He said that what they anticipate doing to the day camp is that they intend to contract with a port-a-potty company to bring in port-a-potties and that they will be cleaning them twice a week.  He said that those port-a-potties have sanitizer sinks on the sides of them with sanitizer soap and paper towels, which he feels takes care of the issue regarding where the sewage will be going for this summer.  Mr. Allison asked if the port-a-potty company will be pumping or cleaning them twice a week?  Mr. Hallberg stated yes.  Mr. Allison asked how many port-a-potties they planned on having?  Mr. Hallberg stated that at present, they plan on approximately twenty, but as the enrollment of children increases closer to three hundred, there will be more put in, if that is approved.  Mr. Allison indicated that they will need to pump closer to at least two times a day rather than twice a week.  Mr. Hallberg stated that if that is needed, then that is what they will do, but right now, the company estimates twice a week.  Mr. Lynch asked whether the Board of Health administers this issue?  Mr. Hallberg said he does not believe so, because it is self-contained.  Ms. Smith stated that the Health Department allows them for certain things, but she does not know the specifics.  Chairman Pearce stated that anything the Planning Board recommends to the Board of Adjustment needs to be contingent upon the Department of Public Health’s approval of whatever is proposed and the reason being is that there is an existing septic system which is inadequate and outdated and there could be a potential problem.  Mr. Hallberg then reviewed the list of conditions from the memo that Mr. Gurley had provided. 


1.  Ingress/Egress Issues.  Mr. Hallberg stated that the number of cars entering the property was a misprint, it should have read that if the camp were to accommodate 300 children, it would be estimated at 230-250 cars, based on a 18 to 23% of the parents enrolling more than one child.


2.  Off street parking, Loading and Unloading. & 3.  Parking in Residential District.  Mr. Hallberg addressed both of these issues by stating that parking for the Staff will be up by cabins 1, 2, 3, and 4 and parents that choose to park will park at the front of the property or to the right of the drive.  He stated that there will be no off-street parking by the parents or staff and indicated the path on a map that he showed to the Planning Board members.  He indicated that no one will be parking on the street of the camp’s property, they will park off the street.


4 & 7. Hours of Operation & Camp Programming.  Mr. Hallberg addressed both of these issues and referred to the pamphlet they provided which indicated the daily activity schedule and the activity list.  It states that day camp will be for this year, from May 26th to August 1st from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and summer camp, this year, will be from March 31 to May 23 and from August 2 to September 28.  He reviewed the activity schedule from 6 a.m. until they prepare to go home, which is indicated on the pamphlet provided


8. Lighting.  Mr. Hallberg stated that the lighting is already in place and that they are not a high glare lighting and are for security purposes only.  He stated that it is not intended for anyone or any groups of individuals to play ball or for any other activity except for security.  He indicated that they had problems with the front lights, which glared into nearby neighbor’s windows and indicated that they had Duke Power to turn them.  He said all the lights on the property are low intensity street lights.


9. Facilities Siting.  Mr. Hallberg stated that the new cabins are activity buildings and are small and not intended to house anyone to sleep in.  He said that they will be used for arts and crafts projects only.


Mr. Hallberg indicated some other issues.  He stated that there is a resident who lives on Bonner Street, who was concerned that the camp had a cabin proposed near Bonner Street. They asked the applicant to remove it from that site because they felt it would be a hindrance and Mr. Hallberg indicated that they would comply with that and had removed it on the revised site plan, which he showed the Board. 


6. Buffering.  Mr. Hallberg indicated that regarding the noise levels, they do not intend on having a rifle range or ski boats on the lake.  Mr. Lynch stated that the County does have a Noise Ordinance.  Ms. Smith stated that it does not apply to all camp activities such as ringing a bell for activities or meals or for any type of normal camp sounds. 


Mr. Allison asked how many horses they intended to have and where they planned on riding

them?  Mr. Hallberg replied by stating they hope to get 15 horses and that they will be ridden

around the camp’s property only.  He stated that they plan on renting the horses from an

individual that has rented horses to other camps and that the owner of the horses said that the

camp’s property and road areas are sufficient to ride them.  Mr. Lynch stated that swimming is

indicated as one of the activities, but asked where will they swim, if they do not swim at the

lake?  Mr. Hallberg stated that they intend on putting in a swimming pool, but that will not be one

of the activities they will provide this year.  Chairman Pearce stated that traffic is a concern of the neighbors especially the route coming into the camp.  He stated that he would encourage the applicants that the traffic flow on their brochure maps shows everything coming off of Kanuga and the access coming from that direction which would encourage people at least to travel that way.  Mr. Hallberg showed a map, which would indicate how to get to the camp.  Mr. Lynch asked whether there are any building codes for the cabins?  Ms. Smith stated that there are building codes for the new cabins and certain things for the upgrade of the other cabins such as electrical and plumbing.   Mr. Allison asked that regarding buildings # 1, 2, 3 and 5, will they hold approximately 30 to 35 people?  Mr. Hallberg stated that they had made amendments to that application because they first were going to make the camp an overnight camp, but then changed it to a day and summer camp.  He stated that Mr. Gurley had an amendment to that conditional use permit application.  He said that those buildings at present will be used for storage and eventually be upgraded for crafts buildings or for rain days.  Mr. Allison reviewed each building and their purpose, reading from the applicant’s memo, and which ones would be burned down by the fire department and he stated that if buildings #1, 2, 3, 5 could house a total of 140 children, where will the rest be in a electrical storm?  Mr. Hallberg stated that is the reason for the two large pavilion tents being erected.  Mr. Allison stated that would depend on how severe the electrical storm would be, because you would not want them under a tent until the parents came.  Mr. Hallberg said that if they knew there could be a potential storm coming through, they would cancel camp or arrange for buses to take them to a safe place until the parents would come for the children.  Ms. Smith asked the applicants whether the new tents have been shown on the new plan in relation to the future dining hall?  Mr. Hallberg stated that they are shown on the new plan and showed the tents in relation to where they will be on the property.  He stated that they presently have four tennis courts and will take two of the tennis courts that are in the back part out and put a large tent in that area and another tent would go in the front of the property near the proposed dining hall (he showed this on their new plan) which will house approximately 500 children.  Chairman Pearce asked about meals.  Mr. Hallberg stated that the children will pack their own lunches each day except on Fridays, when the camp will provide pizza by an outside restaurant.  He stated that when the dining hall is erected, there will be prepared meals given to the children.  Mr. Allison stated that you will not be allowed to prepare meals unless you have City Sewer.  Mr. Hallberg stated that he was told that because it is a temporary eating facility they would not need a City Sewer System hook-up.  Ms. Smith asked whether the swimming pool is indicated on the new plan?  Mr. Hallberg stated that the swimming pool will go where the tennis court tent will be.  Ms. Smith asked whether you are asking for approval of the swimming pool at this time?  Mr. Hallberg said “yes, ” because next year we would like to install the pool.  He said that nothing is going in this year.  Chairman Pearce opened public input at this time.


Judy Sloan.  She stated that she lives on Bonner Street and is very concerned about the traffic going into and out of the camp because of their location near the Camp.  She stated that the residents of Bonner Street oppose the use of Bonner Street for the purpose of access to the camp for children being dropped off and picked up, as well as deliveries and any other traffic of a commercial nature or pertaining to the operation of the camp, retreats, events and other similar activities of the camp.  Chairman Pearce stated that the Board can ask or suggest to the applicant keeping down the traffic, but if some stray parents of the camp children go down Bonner Street, it would be hard to control that as it is a public road.  She added that her main concern is that they do not use their back driveway as a camp entrance.  She distributed a petition from residents of Bonner Street stating the concern about traffic.


Diane Simpson.  She stated that some of the issues that she was concerned about have been addressed.  She stated that her main concern also is dealing with traffic.  She is concerned that the road will not accommodate the traffic that will be occurring.  She stated that a consideration of three-way stops, which would discourage using the drives nearby and force them to use Kanuga Street would be advised.


Laurence Holmes.  He stated that he is a resident of Bonner Street and lives directly behind the camp.  He stated that he is in favor of the Camp but was concerned about the flies that the horses would produce.


Walter Carpenter stated that YMCA had a camp at this location for a number of years, and asked how many campers did they have?  Ms. Smith stated that Camp Riley was limited to 200 people, but they housed the children.  As far as the YMCA, she stated that she was unsure of the amount of campers and could not supply that information at this time.  Chairman Pearce stated that this is an issue that needs some limitations and the Board should make a condition on the amount of campers.  Ms. Smith brought up some items for clarification regarding the Staff comments:  (1) Access from Old South Carolina Avenue was meant for directing traffic; (2) for Off-street parking and loading, there is a minimum dimension for off-street loading which is 12 X 40 feet, and she feels that the applicants will be able to accommodate that on the property; (3) a buffer strip along North Lakeside is suggested regarding the parking area in a residential district; (6) regarding the perimeter buffering, the applicant plans on using what is there, but if the buffering became diseased or affected by a storm, it would need to be replaced; (7) Ms. Smith stated that she interprets what the applicants mean regarding the camp programming is summer campers would come before day camp session starts in May and after day camp session ended, but this needs better clarification.  Chairman Pearce stated that this would call for a different sewer requirement because if you make people have extended stays overnight, there are such things as showers, etc. that are required.  Mr. Hallberg stated that when the Boy Scouts would come, such as a Friday night and stay until Sunday morning, usually they would not take showers there, but go home and take a shower.  He added that they still will maintain the same port-a-potty system until they can get with the Health Department and find out what type of system they want the Camp to have.  Ms. Smith also suggested that the dates of the Camp will differ each year, so instead of using specific dates, they might use mid-May to late summer and specify possibly a 10-week camp.  Ms. Smith stated that regarding overnight campers, these would exceed the hours of operation and would make it a 24-hour operation.  Ms. Smith said that the applicants would need to stay within the bounds of that district (R-20) as far as whom the camp rents to and what type of activities takes place. (8)  Lighting should be clarified so that outdoor lighting will be directed on the subject property and be shielded from adjoining properties; (9)  Ms. Smith stated that the applicants have clarified that they wish the Board to approve the potential structures plus the tents and the swimming pool and eliminate one building.  Ms. Smith stated that Staff would suggest a condition that both the new and the existing buildings would comply with all applicable building code/zoning ordinance conditions and other state, local and federal requirements.  She also indicated that the applicants will need to talk with the Inspection Department regarding the tents and the process of permitting them and that the applicant should not exceed the number of buildings shown on the plan.  They also need to specify that the buildings which were shown as cabins are now activity buildings, and indicate that they not be used for overnight accommodations.  She also indicated that another condition should be that the conditional use permit for Service Works would no longer be in effect and that the new conditional use permit is specific to the applicant and cannot be assigned to another entity. 


Georgina Holmes.  She stated that she is in favor of the Camp but has concerns about the trees along Bonner Street and that she does not want to see them brought down, but rather used as a buffer.  Her other concern was relating to the number of dogs on the property and controlling them especially where there will be horses as well.  Chairman Pearce indicated that when he was on the Camp property earlier in the day, he noticed that the dogs were confined in a fenced area and assumed that that will be the case.


Mr. Carpenter stated that regarding the issues of access on Old South Carolina Avenue versus Lakeside Drive versus Wright Street, is there anything in the statute that the Board of Adjustment can regulate regarding those issues?  Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment has to deal with access and review the plan, but NCDOT will control it.  She stated that she does not feel that there is a way that the Board can make them come a certain way into or out of the Camp, it can only be a recommendation. 


Dorothy Paramore.  She is a resident of Lakeside Drive.  She basically stated that in the past from previous Camps being there, that the traffic was a mess and wanted everyone to know the traffic problem.


Chairman Pearce made a motion to send a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment in the matter of the Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman for a summer camp and its related uses (CU-02-15), as amended, and that by granting this permit, the former conditional use permit will no longer be in effect and that the camp usage for this year will be as noted on the applicant’s form:  For the day camp, activities shall be limited to those specified in the application (as amended) and operation shall occur in accordance with the approximate dates (May 26 – August 1) specified in the application (as amended) and in accordance with the hours of operation (6:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M.) specified in the application (as amended).  For the summer camp (also known as the use of the camp property by other groups for daily or overnight use), activities shall be limited to those specified in the application (as amended) and operation shall occur in accordance with the approximate dates (March 31 – May 23 and August 2 – September 28) specified in the application (as amended).  Hours of operation for the summer camp may be for daily or overnight use, in accordance with the application (as amended).  He added that the Board of Adjustment should  ascertain that the facilities in place at this time are adequate to handle up to 300 day campers and that the tents that they propose to use will be adequate to meet those requirements.  If not, then the existing buildings on the property need to be further addressed.  That the perimeter buffering must remain and must not be removed unless diseased and then must be replaced.  That the use of the port-a-potties, and the issue of the use of sewer and septic needs to be approved by the Henderson County Health Department and whether the use of the port-a-potties are an acceptable method of handling the camp’s facilities, if it is applicable.  The Planning Board also notes that a swimming pool is planned to be built in the future and that the applicants intend to eliminate two tennis courts.  That the intent is that Bonner Street not be used as a main access to and from the Camp for commercial camp activities.  It would also be appropriate that the applicant provide a copy of the revised map that was presented at the Planning Board meeting by the applicants to Planning Staff.  That any additional buildings be approved by the Zoning Administrator.  That the day camp and summer camp must obtain any necessary federal, state and local permits as required.  That they are limited to the buildings as described and shown on the map that was presented at the Planning Board meeting by the applicants.  That the applicant must comply with Section 200-69.C(6)(b) by handling the off-street parking and loading and unloading areas and that the glare from on-site lighting will be controlled and adjoining property owners will be protected.  Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.



Taylor Forest (File # 2002-M21) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (23 Single-

Family Lots off Gilreath Loop Road).  Mike Taylor, Agent for LAM Investments, LLC, Owner. 

Mr. Cook stated that the Major Subdivision, Taylor Forest, is located off Gilreath Loop Road. The proposed development will be completed in one phase containing 23 single-family detached dwellings on 18.8 acres. The land is located in an Open Use zoning district and Water Supply Watershed IV and the lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks.


Technical and Procedural Comments


Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.  Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Master Plan; there are no comments since the applicant provided plans at a more detailed, yet legible scale.


Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Development Plan, the following comments are for approval:


  1. Fire Protection – On a revised Development Plan the location of the proposed or nearest water supply point for fire protection should be shown or stated since hydrants on a public water system will not be available (HCSO 170-20C and Appendix 5).


3.   Road Design – The developer has proposed public roads. The Final Plat(s) should be presented to NCDOT for approval of road designs prior to Planning Department approval.


      4.   Flag Lot – Lots 8, 16, and 17 are flag lots that require specific approval from the Planning Board (HCSO 170-31-D). The lots have the required 30-feet road frontage and the width of each lot is 30-feet as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (HCSO 170-31D)


Mr. Patterson regarding the front lot toward the north side, which is also owned by the applicant, why is that not a lot?  Mr. Cook stated that what transpired in that situation is before they had submitted this proposal to Staff; they had come to Staff and had submitted a Minor Subdivision for that specific lot.  Normally we would not permit that to take place, but since the applicant had given us full disclosure about the intent of the property, Staff allowed it to take place, but that this is unusual and normally we do not allow it.  But based on the disclosure and we knew what the intent was of the property, Staff permitted it, and allowed them to create a smaller Minor Subdivision.  Ms. Smith added that this lot will not be part of this project as far as restrictive covenants, etc. and they were trying to get that sold off.  Mr. Patterson added that in addition regarding drainage, there is no notation about size or length and he stated that that is a requirement.  He also added that he feels the applicants are running their drain ways a long distance, from basically from the middle of lot 7 all the way to the front and also on typical lot setbacks, it is 35 feet from the centerline of the road, which means a 45 foot right-of-way, the house being approximately 12 ˝ feet back from the right-of-way, which he feels is very close.  He asked the applicant to address these items, if possible.  Staff stated that they noticed the setbacks, but also notes that this project is in the Open Use District, which has no setback requirements.  Mr. Luther Smith, who spoke on behalf of the applicant, addressed the questions

Mr. Patterson asked, but addressing the drainage question.  He stated that the Ordinance requires to show pipe crossings and the grading plan has been turned in with the erosion control people and addresses the drain ways.  He stated that the water comes down and is turned off in several places as level spreaders in the drainage areas between the lots, so there is no need for pipe where you mentioned to the cul-de-sac.  Ms. Smith stated as far as a requirement, the Board can make it a condition as far as size and length on a revised Development Plan.  Mr. Smith stated that with regard to the setback, he feels it is sufficient from the standpoint in giving the developer leeway he needs for the units.  He added that they wanted to allow if a situation would arise that he would need to be closer, they could accommodate specific topographical or septic situations that create an undo hardship.  Mr. Smith stated that the Restrictive Covenants have already been submitted.  Regarding the fire protection issue, Mr. Smith stated that he would provide that information to Staff and that regarding the erosion control; a letter has been submitted to Staff.  Mr. Smith stated that regarding the flag lots 8, 16 and 17, they have been provided with 30-foot access to the lot, which was done principally to eliminate the significant length of the road to basically serve one lot.  Mr. Patterson stated that on the quad map it shows a blue line coming in, where does the water stop and is there any water on the property?  Mr. Smith stated that he believes it is coming in just off of the property edge.  Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board finds and concludes that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Taylor Forest Subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and

further moves that such Plans be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comment 2 before any construction occurs, the applicant satisfies comment 3 prior to Final Plat approval, and the Planning Board grants specific approval of Flag Lots 8, 16, and 17 and that an additional provision be completed and notated on the Final Development Plan regarding the drainage size and length.  Walter Carpenter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. 


Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 15, Carriage Crest – Development Parcel

Review (48 town homes and 7 single-family lots off Carriage Park Way) – Vic Knight, Land \

Planning Collaborative, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Owner/Developer.  Paul Patterson stated that he would recuse himself, as he would be a witness for this quasi-judicial hearing for this project.  Chairman Pearce stated that this will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding and the proceeding will consider plans for a development parcel known as Section 15, Carriage Crest.   Chairman Pearce also explained what a quasi-judicial proceeding is and asked all persons who speak and participate, including any witnesses that will be called, to be placed under oath.  Chairman Pearce then asked all parties to the proceeding including Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Dale Hamlin, Manager and Developer, Gerald Liedl, Resident & Architectural Committee for Carriage Park, James Bandelin, Resident & Architectural Committee for Carriage Park, Vic Knight, Land Planner for Carriage Park, and Paul Patterson, Civil Engineer for the project) and the Planning Department Staff, (Derrick Cook, Planner, and Planning Director Karen Smith) to be sworn in.  Mr. Cook stated that Section 15 is 35-acre area of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development located off Highway 191 (Haywood Road). The development is for 7 proposed singe-family detached units and 48 town homes. The lot sizes range from 0.52 acres to 1.03 acres and this section is located in an R-30 zoning district and in Water Supply Watershed IV.  Mr. Cook stated that Section 15 is part of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development which was approved under Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended).


Mr. Vic Knight stated that in Section 15 there were some slopes that were 40% or greater, so they tried to concentrate the developed areas on the flatter slopes and laid the roads in where they were easier to build and this would have less impact to the site, so therefore, the reason way the roads were laid out.  He stated that they preserved a natural site for community space within the section.  Mr. Carpenter stated that there are no calls (no meets and bounds) on the outside of this parcel.  Mr. Knight showed on a drawing the perimeter buffer to the Carriage Park Development and buffers that were shown between the parcel sections.  He also noted the area where the single-family lots and the townhouse units would be located and added that all the roads would be private and designed to NCDOT standards.  Mr. Knight stated that a submittal of evidence regarding erosion and sedimentation control plan has been given to NCDENR.  Chairman Pearce asked each party whether they had any comments or questions of Mr. Knight.  Mr. Bandelin stated that the information that Mr. Knight supplied has been reviewed by the Architectural Committee for Carriage Park and that the committee totally endorses all plans submitted.  Ms. Smith asked whether the cross-section to illustrate the cul-de-sac design have been submitted to NCDOT to confirm they will meet State standards?  Mr. Knight stated that they had submitted this.  Mr. Knight stated that the typical cross-section that was provided on the cul-de-sacs is 18 feet of paving with a 24 inch gutter on each side and the NCDOT standard for that cross-section of road is a 29 foot diameter paving section at the cul-de-sac with a 40-foot radius right-of-way, which was provided on the two locations where the project has cul-de-sacs.  No other evidence was made by any of the parties.  Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the Layout and Materials Plan for Section 15 for conformance with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended) and reviewed the technical and procedural comments: 


1.   Open Space – Based on the proposed 55 units, 37.88 acres of land is necessary to meet the R-30 density requirements. The Development Parcel size is 35.0 acres. The difference constitutes a 2.88-acre of land shortage. The 2.88 acres of land should be dedicated as open space somewhere else in Carriage Park to meet requirements. The additional open space will need to be put on record prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lots in Section 15.


2.   Evidence of Infrastructure – Required road access, drainage, water, and sewer improvements must be extended to the boundary of Section 15, or the developer must post a guarantee for such improvements prior to the Final Plat approval for the lots in Section 15.


3.   Road Names – Road names will need to be submitted and approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Office.


4.   Erosion Control Permit - Evidence of approval of an erosion and sedimentation control

      needs to be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval of Section



5.   Final Plat – If the Development Parcel Plan for Section 15 is approved, the applicant must record a Final Plat for Section 15 that meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a Non-Standard Subdivision.


Mr. Cook then asked the Board to consider these conditions to be addressed in a revised Development Plan.  Ms. Smith stated that she would like to enter Staff’s Memo as presented as evidence.  Chairman Pearce asked whether we need to make a condition regarding the specifics of the parcel boundaries, and how should the Board consider this.  Ms. Smith stated that the Board could ask for a revised construction plans defining the project boundaries.  There were no questions or comments directed to Staff by the parties.  Ms. Smith indicated she wishes to note the applicant’s plans and other materials submitted as evidence.  No other questions or comments from any parties at this time. 


Mike Cooper moved that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Development Plan submitted for Section 15 of carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the provisions of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permit regulating the Planned Unit Development (#SP-93-13, as amended) except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments 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: Comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  being satisfied prior to the approval of the Final Plat for Section 15.  In addition, that the revised construction drawings to show defined project boundaries.  Jack Lynch seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  Chairman Pearce asked Staff to execute an Order to be completed and presented at the next Planning Board meeting.


Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith to introduce the new Planning Department Staff member.  Ms. Smith introduced Autumn Radcliff, who is the new Planner with the Planning Department.  Chairman Pearce indicated that Board member Roger Wolff has resigned from the Planning Board due to out-of-town business obligations that would keep him from attending Planning Board meetings. 


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-02-05, to Rezone Three Parcels Totaling 329.97 Acres

at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of the French Broad River and Butler Bridge Road

From OU (Open Use) to I-2 (General Industrial).  William M. Alexander, Attorney, Agent for

Tap Root Dairy, LLC; Big J Small J Partnership; and Juanita Johnston and Mary Louise Corn,

Co-Trustees of the Estate of S.E. Johnston, Jr., Owners.  Josh Freeman stated that the applicants are requesting that three parcels be rezoned from Open Use to I-2 (General Industrial District).  He stated that the total from all three parcels is 329.97 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the French Broad River and Butler Bridge Road and is adjacent to the Town of Fletcher and borders Interstate 26.  He stated that the subject property includes ap0proximately 3,000 feet of frontage along the French Broad River and distance from key points such as .80 miles south of the Asheville Regional Airport; .60 miles east of Glenn Marlow Elementary; .35 miles east of the Glens of Aberdeen residential subdivision and approximately .85 highway miles northwest of the intersection of I-26 and Us Highway 25 at Naples.  He stated that it is currently in the Open Use District on the east and west boundaries and bounded on the north by the Town of Fletcher Highway Commercial zoning and on the northeast by the Town of Fletcher Residential zoning, and bounded on the south by 220 acre I-2 (industrial district).  He stated that the OU (Open Use District) and I-2 District are relatively similar.  He stated that Open Use allows a variety of uses by right, but a number of uses must satisfy a series of standards and requirements.  He stated that I-2 by comparison, allows virtually all non-residential uses permitted under the Open Use District, however, whereas all uses permitted by right under I-2 must meet site standards such as parking, by right uses under Open Use must satisfy no similar requirements.  Mr. Freeman added that mining and extraction operations require a Conditional Use Permit under I-2, and a Special Use Permit under Open Use.  The list of uses requiring Special Use Permits is much longer under Open Use, covering a list of 11 uses, while I-2 requires such permits for only three uses, including adult establishments and motor sports facilities.  He stated that virtually all uses requiring a Special Use Permit under OU (Open Use) must satisfy a number of site requirements, most notably including ˝ mile separation requirements from schools and, in some cases health care facilities as well as the satisfaction of residential density requirements.  In contrast, only adult establishments, motor sports facilities, and junkyards must satisfy separation requirements from schools and/or health care facilities, and in the case of adult establishments, churches day cares, etc.  Most other uses that must satisfy separation requirements under Open Use are allowed by right in I-2 and therefore do not have to meet such requirements.  Mr. Freeman stated that the subject property is adjacent to undeveloped (agricultural) uses to the north, south and west; and to a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential uses on the south and east along Butler Bridge Road to its intersection with US 25.  He stated that the NCDOT traffic count for Butler Bridge Road is 2,700 vehicles per day.  The environmental considerations are substantial as they were for the I-2 District across the road.  The subject project has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along the French Broad River and approximately 6,000 feet of frontage along Cane Creek.  He noted that the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback from all streams for all structures constructed within an approved industrial subdivision and other than that, the County has no other environmental regulations.  He stated that approximately 95.19 acres or 29% of the total property is located within the 100-year floodplain, but at present, Henderson County does not impose any flood hazard prevention regulations in the floodplain.  There is no difference between the two districts (Open Use and I-2) regarding the floodplain.  Mr. Freeman stated that in his opinion, the application at the very least does not worsen any consistencies with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.  It is specifically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as far as the location of the proposed industrial zoning and its industrial uses.  The goals and objectives and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that are inconsistent with this application relate to environmental issues, which are equally inconsistent under the current zoning.  Mr. Freeman stated that there is no improvement under this application from that standpoint, but is consistent with a number of economic developments and industrial siting location recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Mills River/Fletcher Area Land Use Study recommends industrial for this property with the exception of the floodplain and also the Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends the floodplain being used as agricultural uses.  The Mills River Study recommends that the portion of the subject property lying within the 100-year flood plain be utilized for agriculture, conservation, and other open space uses.  The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with this recommendation.  Under the proposed Mills River Incorporation the subject property lies adjacent to, but not within, the boundary of the proposed Town of Mills River.  The Committee of 100 recommendations is that the subject property lies within an area identified by the Committee of 100 in October 2001 as a potential industrial site.  The proposed rezoning is consistent with this recommendation.  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning as submitted based on two major reasons:  Consistency with the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan map with regard to the general placement of industrial uses and industrial sites in the County are rare especially the size of this proposed industrial site which provide a rare opportunity for the promotion of industrial employment and economic growth in Henderson County.  Mr. Freeman stated that from Staff’s standpoint, he does not feel any reason to deny this application.  Mr. Allison stated that he feels it would be a poor area for residential houses because of the direct flight path of the airport.  Mr. Freeman agreed.  Mr. Carpenter asked, “what would be the results if the recommendation would be to rezone the portion that’s not within the 100 year flood zone?”  Mr. Freeman stated that ultimately there would be no difference between Open Use and I-2 District, as the applicants can develop virtually anything under Open Use that they could under I-2.  He said that the only difference under I-2.  He added that there is a greater likelihood of residences in the floodplain and manufactured home parks under Open Use.  Staff has debated whether it is better to promote industrial in the floodplain or residential in the floodplain, but from a loss of life standpoint it would be hard to determine.  He stated that he feels there would be more encouragement of urban run-off by encouraging industrial in the floodplain, but it must be weighed against property owners residing there.  Mr. Carpenter said he has been trying to weigh the difference and said he is not too pleased in recommending industrial in a flood zone.  Mr. Freeman asked whether we would cause any improvement in the conditions by leaving that portion in the Open Use District, but he does not feel that we would.  He added that should the applicant ever choose to dig into the conservation easement, they might benefit from being industrially zoned from a tax standpoint.  Mr. Lynch was concerned about road problems concerning this application especially if it is rezoned industrial and that this matter should be considered.  Mr. Freeman stated that the County cannot require that the applicant address these concerns as a condition of rezoning.  Mr. Allison stated that he supports the application.  William Alexander, agent and attorney representing the owners stated that in reference to the utilities and infrastructure which states in Staff’s memo that the subject property has no direct access to sewer and water service, he said that this is true but showed on a map where his clients own a two close-proximity properties where the water main runs, so in actual fact the subject property does have access to water service, because it can be tapped on their own property.  He added that the Mills River sewer line proposes to access through these two properties so there might as well be sewer access to the subject parcel.  He also stated that the sewer is located on the same side as I-26, not opposite side of I-26 as mentioned in Staff’s memo.  Mr. Alexander addressed the floodplain issue by stating that the high grounds accentually isolates those lands from the road frontage and in terms of future sales, the owners would be looking in terms of selling those lands with the other two parcels.  Therefore, the industry applying the high grounds for industrial purpose could make uses of those consistent with their industry and would not need industrial approval to use those lands as part of their industrial application.  Mr. Alexander wanted to note to the Board members that on behalf of the owners of this subject parcel, there is no current plan to sell the property to any individual to dispel any rumors as they are presently using the land for farm use.

Mr. Carpenter asked whether this rezoning application has been sent to the school board for comment?  Mr. Freeman stated that he had requested input from a variety of agencies and forwarded this to Mr. Tom Burnham, Superintendent of Schools, but Staff did not receive any comment back.  Mr. Carpenter stated that had Staff not sent any material out to the school board he would have been inclined to table this application to get something from them, but since they have been notified he is not in that position to do such.  Mr. Carpenter then made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on application # R-02-05 to rezone three parcels totaling approximately 329.97 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of the French Broad River and Butler Bridge Road from Open Use to I-2.  Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.


Zoning Map Amendments Application # R-02-06 to Rezone 2.32-Acre Parcel Adjacent to King’s Grocery in East Flat Rock, Northwest of the Intersection of Old Spartanburg Highway

and Fairground Avenue, from R-20 (Low-Density Residential) to C-4 (Highway Commercial). Gordon McAuliffe, Owner/Applicant.  Mr. Freeman stated that the applicant’s requests that the County rezone a 2.32-acre parcel of land located behind King’s Grocery in East Flat Rock, north west of the intersection of Old Spartanburg Highway and Fairground Avenue.  He stated that they wish to change the zoning from R-20, low density residential to C-4, Highway Commercial district.  Mr. Freeman stated that the property is currently being used as an RV park with approximately 26 spaces.  He said there are three manufactured homes on the property that make it pre-existing, non-conforming manufactured home park as well as a pre-existing, non-conforming commercial use.  The subject property was zoned R-20 in October of 1990 as part of Phase I of the East Flat Rock Zoning Study.  On the north and west side of the property, it is zoned R-20, on the south and southeastern side by C-4 zoning, on the east by one R-20 zoning and on the northeastern side by O & I zoning.   Mr. Freeman gave the purpose statements of R-20 and C-4 districts and stated that the main difference between these two districts is that R-20 allows residential structures on 20,000 square foot lots and C-4 does not allow any residential uses and has no minimum lot sizes and allows a very broad range of commercial uses with a narrower range of industrial uses with a conditional use permit.  He said that motor sports facilities and adult establishments are allowed with a Special Use Permit.  He did point out that the size and proximity of the subject parcel to East Henderson High School makes it virtually impossible to develop either use on the subject parcel.  He stated that the C-4 district was established in 1990 and stated that the subject parcel is located at an important intersection that could reasonably be considered a commercial node, is adjacent to long-established commercial and institutional uses (King’s Grocery and East Henderson High School) and has itself been utilized for commercial purposes since prior to the establishment of zoning in this area.  Mr. Freeman stated that the subject property has direct access to public water and has septic services.  Mr. Freeman said that the Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan generally supports this application from the standpoint that the Plan generally encourages commercial uses to exist at “key nodes” and historical intersections, but should also be utilized in a less-intensive commercial scale uses than what C-4 allows.  He said that the Plan map however, recommends residential uses only on the subject property.  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff’s biggest concern regarding this application, is not with the presence of commercial on this property, it is the range of uses that are allowed in the C-4 district and the subject property is just big enough that some of the uses that could go in under C-4, makes Staff very nervous, given that this is not a main thoroughfare district.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Board needs to consider what will happen in the future when this property is no longer around and has sold the property to someone else.  Mr. Allison asked what would be the main objective that the property owner could bring in, should it be rezoned C-4?  Mr. Freeman said some of the items that could develop in C-4 would be a McDonald’s-type restaurant, used car lot, repair garage, welding shop, just to name a few.  Mr. Allison feels that this area is going to C-4 tendencies as well as the C-4 district is across the road.  He said he knows there is quite a bit of residential in and around the area, but he feels that the residential tendencies will go away sometime in the future.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Comprehensive Plan establishes a plan for the community and to deviate from that plan needs to be well justified by a number of criteria, and he said that Staff did not find any criteria in justifying or deviating from the Plan.  Overall, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the 1993 Plan.  Chairman Pearce asked Staff; by the definition of C-4 he wanted Staff to identify the road frontage of the subject property as meeting the definition of C-4?  Mr. Freeman said it is not along a major thoroughfare and is inconsistent with the purpose statement of C-4. 


Mr. Gordon McAuliffe, owner/applicant of the subject property stated that his property is a non-conforming use at present, but it was in existence prior to it being zoned.  Chairman Pearce stated that usually when something like that is done the intent is at the time is even though it is a different use, it would be the Board’s intention in the future that it reverts back, and in this case, R-20.  He said at the time the Board’s thinking would have been to knowingly take a piece of property that was a non-conforming use and the future plan would be if the use ever changes it would eventually conform again with R-20 in this case.  Mr. McAuliffe said that the park was built in the 1950’s, so it has been long established.  Mr. McAuliffe said that their intention for the property is to sell park models. He said the other campgrounds that are in the County that are not zoned with restrictive ways, also sell park models in addition to allowing overnight camping.  He said that when they purchased the park they had spent considerable money upgrading the facilities, but they were not aware of the short camping season in the area.  He explained that if they could sell park models, it could extend their season.  Chairman Pearce stated that as an applicant, the Board really does not need to know the specific use of the property, because you are not bound to that specific use nor any future owners of the property while it is under that particular zoning.  Mr. McAuliffe stated that the effects of adding the sale of park models would be minimal, if any from the neighborhood.  Ms. Smith stated that from she understands the subject property is not hooked up permanently to sewer.  There was a brief discussion of the nearby uses among Board members.  Mr. Freeman stated that there are four points how Staff determines the validity of a rezoning:  (1) is it consistent with an existing plant; (2) can we demonstrate a change of conditions that necessitates a rezoning; (3) is there a community interest that justifies a rezoning or (4) would denying an application impose detriments upon the applicant that outweigh the benefits of denying the application to the community.  Mr. Freeman stated that the fourth point is the hardest one to answer.  He stated that the fourth point is the one that Staff has always trouble with.  Ms. Smith added that these are the points that the courts use for determining spot zoning and generally applicable to any rezoning.  Ms. McAuliffe stated that the reason they purchased the property is because they have a child with disabilities and needed to have a home-based business.  Mr. McAuliffe added that the park at present is not making the money that it could make if they had the options that the other parks have.  Mr. McAuliffe stated that they have seen the opportunities through park models, which they could make something on the sale from them that could establish longer-term tenants.  Chairman Pearce stated that the Board has a choice of sending the application to Subcommittee or making a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.  Mr. Allison asked whether Staff would feel better putting a limit on the frontage?  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff did consider this, but ended up not recommended that issue, but it could be considered.  After some discussion concerning this, Mr. Freeman pointed out on a map that the subject parcel is located beside King’s Grocery, northwest of the intersection of Old Spartanburg Highway and Fairground Avenue and suggested to the Board members that perhaps only the front portion of the subject parcel be rezoned from R-20 to C-4 and that the remaining portion of the parcel remain as R-20.  Mr. Cooper stated that if the front portion is only zoned C-4, all the applicant needs the C-4 is the means of selling park models as the Board can not stop putting a park model in at present.  Mr. Freeman stated that any commercial activity would have to take place in the C-4 District portion, which would be in the front portion of the property, if proposed.  Chairman Pearce asked whether putting a commercial designation on that portion of the property produce an undo burden on the manufactured home park property owners nearby.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Board should not view a manufactured home park any different than single-family structures.  Mr. Carpenter stated that the idea was that anything north of Old Spartanburg Highway would be residential, except King’s Grocery Store that obviously was never going to change.  After more discussion, Chairman Pearce made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application.  Walter Carpenter seconded the motion.  Chairman Pearce stated that the major reason for denial is because of the nature of the properties adjacent are residential and does not believe that the road is properly designed for C-4 commercial area and the reasons as mentioned in Staff’s memo that was presented to the Planning Board members.  There were three members in favor of the denial: Jack Lynch, Tedd Pearce and Walter Carpenter.  There was four members opposed of the motion to deny the application:  Leon Allison, Todd Thompson, Paul Patterson and Mike Cooper.  The motion failed.  Mr. Allison made a motion to send to the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation to approve the entire subject parcel to C-4, Highway Commercial.  Todd Thompson seconded the motion.  Mr. Allison stated that the reason to approve this application is that the subject parcel is adjacent, across the street and next to the school is C-4 district and eventually all the homes will disappear and become commercial, which will be a small business district.  Mr. Cooper stated that this property is non-conforming at this time in relation to the other commercial areas surrounding the subject parcel.  Paul Patterson, Todd Thompson and Leon Allison voted in favor of the motion.  Tedd Pearce, Walter Carpenter, Mike Cooper and Jack Lynch opposed the motion.  The motion failed.  Mr. Cooper made a motion to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that only the front portion of the subject parcel be rezoned from R-20 to C-4 and that the remaining portion of the subject parcel remain as R-20.  Mr. Cooper stated that this motion is based on the previous reasons from what he had mentioned and what Mr. Allison had said.  Leon Allison seconded the motion.  The applicant, Mr. McAuliffe agreed on this motion of splitting the property.  Paul Patterson, Todd Thompson, Leon Allison and Mike Cooper were in favor of the motion.    Jack Lynch, Tedd Pearce and Walter Carpenter opposed the motion.  The motion carried.


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-02-07 to Rezone Portions of a 180-Acre Parcel at

the Intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, from R-30 (Low-Density Residential) to

R-20 Low-Density Residential (85 acres) and C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District (12

 acres).  Conomo Properties, LLC, Property Owner/Applicant.  Mr. Freeman stated that this application is requesting that the County rezone a 180-acre parcel of land.  They wish to rezone an 85.19-acre portion to R-20 Low-Density Residential District; a 82.71-acre portion, which lies within the 100-year flood plain to remain R-30, and a 12.39-acre portion, located at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District.  Mr. Freeman reviewed R-20, R-30, and C-2 districts and their purpose.  He mentioned that the property is also located in the WS-IV watershed, which imposes a minimum lot size restriction of 20,000 square feet for residential uses.  Commercial uses may make impervious up to 24% of the lot by right, 36% if natural filtration and drainage measures are utilized and 70% upon receipt of a special intensity allocation.  However, the C-2 district text requires that no more than 40% of the total tract can be covered by a structure.  The subject parcel is slightly less than .30 miles south of the WS-IV critical area.  He stated that the subject parcel is located in a largely rural, agricultural and low-density residential area of the county.  For the most part, the 100-year flood plain is undeveloped and contributes to the rural and agricultural character of the area.  He mentioned that the 1998 annual average daily traffic count for NC 191 in the vicinity of the subject parcel is 10,900 cars per day, and according to the 1997 annual average daily traffic count for North Rugby Road in the vicinity of the subject parcel is 4,700 cars per day.  Mr. Freeman stated that according to Ed Green, District Engineer with NCDOT, any commercial activities taken place on the commercially rezoned portion would need to install turn lanes, depending upon the scale of any proposed development.  Again Mr. Freeman mentioned that approximately 46% of the subject parcel is located within the 100-year flood plain.  He said at present the entire parcel is zoned R-30 and the application proposes no zoning changes within the floodplain at this time.  Though development within the floodplain is unlikely given insurance and financing limitation.  Mr. Freeman said that the proposed rezoning is consistent with or actively furthers the following goals, objectives, recommendations and actions of the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Henderson County.  He added that Staff’s biggest concern with the proposed C-2 portion is not so much the range of uses but the size of the C-2 district that is being proposed.  He feels that the Comprehensive Plan would probably recommend a smaller size, but there is no definitive number suggested.  C-2 district does allow some industrial uses with a Conditional Use Permit.  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff opposes the R-20 portion because, based on the calculations found in the provided text information, R-20 is not necessary to realistically achieve what could also be achieved under R-20 standard development practices.  He said that both R-30 and R-20 have planned unit development available, which would involve setting the flood-prone portion of the property aside and shifting that development potential to the upland portion of the property and enable the applicant to develop at least as many lots under current zoning as would be possible if developed to its maximum p9tential under the standard lot design requirements of the proposed R-20 zoning district.  Chairman Pearce stated that previously you mentioned that the R-20 district and had a higher density up above that it could have an adverse effect on the watershed, but by the same token, if they have R-30 and are able to get a higher density trade-off with the conservation district, what has been changed?  Mr. Freeman stated probably nothing.  The density, realistically speaking, given the absence of sewer and the relative inability to develop in the floodplain, the total density by granting R-20 or not granting it would probably not increase, as you can achieve the same thing under either district.  The benefit to the County in maintaining this portion under R-20, is that the applicant must have some development objective in mind.  If it is reasonable to assume that under the current zoning, but those conservational alternatives give Staff some leverage to encourage conservation in the floodplain.  He encourages that that proposed portion for R-20 will be rather kept in the R-30 district.  Granting R-20 district would increase the storm water run-off.  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff recommends rezoning the portion of the subject parcel proposed for C-2 to an appropriate commercial district.  Staff recommends that the Board also consider C-1 (residential commercial) as a possible alternative.  Mr. Freeman stated that Staff is concerned with the scale of development permitted under C-2.  He stated that some of the problems with C-2 are the allowance of light industrial uses with a Conditional Use Permit.  He said it may be inappropriate given the character of the surrounding community and the location of the subject parcel.  Mr. Carpenter asked, “Why would light industrial be bad?”  Mr. Freeman said it may not be, but he is just pointing it out all the potential uses under C-2, which allows light industry and are some of the uses found in the C-4 district, which includes manufacturing, etc.  Mr. Freeman stated in relation to the size of the tract at this intersection, he said there is no answer as to what size would be most appropriate.  He feels that a small-scale commercial site is more appropriate as referenced in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.  As mentioned, C-2 also allows “big-box” type commercial uses that may be more appropriate in more urban settings.  He said as far as the advantages of the C-2 district, it offers more flexibility to the applicant, particularly with regard to lot size, lot coverage and the range of uses.  


Arthur Cleveland.  He stated that he is the owner and applicant of the property and stated that his relatives have developed a number of subdivisions in the area and stated that his intent of the property is for the best use of the land and the area.  He felt that since the property across the street was designated C-2, his 12.39-acre tract could be rezoned to C-2 in keeping with the area.  He stated that he has hired Mark Byington, Land Planner for the project and William Lapsley, engineer for the project.  Mr. Cleveland stated that his only intent for this project is to do a nice development.  He feels it has a lot of potential in particular because of the location and because of the nearby subdivisions and wants to maintain the beauty of the area in keeping with the nearby residential developments.


Mark Byington.  He stated that he is the land planner for the project and stated that because of his business relations with Mr. Cleveland, he does not feel that there will be anything developed light industrial or anything of that nature in the 12.39-acre tract.  He stated that the intention here is to do quality work.  Regarding the proposed R-20 district, he stated that they are trying to keep as much flexibility in their development plan.  He said that they propose to do on the upper portion of the property with R-20, approximately 20 – 30 lots after the utilities and roads are put in.  Regarding the proposed C-2 District, he stated that they just want to be able to develop commercially there that they could not in a C-1 District.  They are looking at a neighborhood-commercial development with a C-2 District.  Chairman Pearce asked, “Have you considered what Mr. Freeman had mentioned about keeping with the R-30 district and taking your conservation credits and change your development plans up above?  Mr. Byington stated that with regard to a PUD or RO, they feel like without getting restrictive they can do the same thing with R-20 district and that there will probably not be any development in the floodway.  He said that they have already done some engineering analysis regarding the sewer and may have the opportunity in bringing sewer into the property.  Mr. Patterson asked whether there will be any development in the floodway? 


Mr. Lapsley.  He stated that he is the consulting engineer for the project and replied to Mr. Patterson’s question.  He stated that they would not recommend developing in the floodway and have no intent to do such.  Mr. Patterson asked, “Where will the sewer come from?”  Mr. Lapsley stated that right now everyone out there is on septic tank and that is one of the reasons why the proposed commercial tract needs to be so large.  He said that grading is an issue and septic systems are an issue and those two reasons take up land.  He said that they are investigating a number of alternatives but at the moment the only option is to go with the septic tanks.  He said the nearest public sewer is approximately 3 miles away.  He added that the stormwater run-off from the R-20, the natural topography would be to go toward the French Broad from the proposed R-20.  From where the proposed C-2 district, it would be at the break point of the topography and drainage as he sees it, to go back towards West Henderson High School to a tributary, which he showed on a map.  Mr. Lynch said that under the road system that NCDOT will try to enforce, NC 191 is on the Transportation Improvement Program, which potentially plans to be widened and the transportation plan will not be done until the end of the year.  He has discussed amongst the County Commissioners that they do not allow potentially expansion roads where they have been designated to be widened.  He said that he is concerned with the NC 191, and wants to know what effect will that have with the change in zoning on NC 191, should it take effect?  Mr. Lapsley said that he does not know that the change in zoning in its own right, would have an effect on zoning.  Mr. Lapsley said that whatever is done there from a commercial standpoint, NCDOT will have input as to where the ingress and egress will be and will require a widening turn lanes. 


Chairman Pearce opened public input at this time.


Robert Campbell.  He stated that he represents Sweetwater Hills Subdivision and said that they are not in favor of the project for the following reasons:  it upsets the rural atmosphere; 12 acres is a huge amount of land to be devoted to commercial (he brought up the proposed Ingles Store several years ago); traffic problems; and both Rugby Roads (North and South Rugby) are narrow, two-lane roads that would need much improvement especially for some industry or stores that would require heavier trucks to travel on those roads.  He feels that if the County is going to give a permit or reclassification of property, it should be for a specific purpose.  Mr. Campbell stated that classifying that portion of the property C-2 will snowball into additional strips because it was mentioned that there is already a C-2 area driving the decision to make an additional C-2 area.  He feels that with a proposal of an R-20 District, it would not be consistent with the surrounding area and would make an impact to the existing subdivisions regarding property value.


Ron Swartzel.  He stated he is representing the property owners of Merriwood Development, and said that in particular there are a few problems about this rezoning proposal he would like to point out. He said that the proposed commercial property would back into one of the properties of Merriwood Development.  There are seven properties in the Merriwood Development and all of them are at least 1˝ acres or more and well kept, this commercial development would sit at the rear of some of the homes in Merriwood.  He believes that if commercial were designated for that 12 acres that we are opening “Pandora’s box” for all of that area at that intersection.  He mentioned that with a high school and a middle school out in the same area, there will be additional traffic congestion with a commercial site.  He opposes the change from R-30 to R-20 because he feels that R-30 is adequate and would like to see all of the property remain R-30.  He added that he would ask the Board to deny this change as well as the access for C-2 district development. 


John Marshall.  He stated that he lives in Merriwood Development and said that he is opposed to a commercial development and wants to keep it as residential.


Mr. Allison stated that he feels this application should go to subcommittee for further study and review.  Mr. Cooper also felt that it would be appropriate for subcommittee review before the full Planning Board makes a recommendation.  Mike Cooper made a motion to send rezoning application # R-02-07 to Subcommittee.  Todd Thompson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  Chairman Pearce assigned this rezoning application to the Short Term Zoning Subcommittee, which consists of Jack Lynch, Chairman, Leon Allison, Kevin Keefe and  Walter Carpenter.   Ms. Smith wanted to know whether this location for the Subcommittee meeting is sufficient.  Chairman Pearce felt that it would be okay to have the meeting here in the Land Development Building.  The Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.   Mr. Carpenter asked Staff whether the Subcommittee could be supplied the size of the surrounding subdivisions with lot size comparisons.  Mr. Freeman stated that he will have that ready for the meeting.  Chairman Pearce asked Staff to find out whether the applicants are planning on bringing the proposed subdivision off of NC 191 or North Rugby Road, or possibly both. 

Status Report on Subdivision Plan Review Issues – Subdivision Issues Subcommittee.  Ms. Smith stated that Subcommittee met and went over the appendices in back of the Subdivision Ordinance and talked about some of the subdivision review issues.  She said that the Subcommittee did not get into the commercial and industrial subdivisions because the review issues took up most of the time.  She stated that they scheduled another subcommittee meeting for February 11, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. and that there will be a revised draft of the appendices.  This will be sent out to all Planning Board members as well as to the surveyors and engineers before the subcommittee meeting so that Staff can get some feed back and be able to present to the subcommittee members at their meeting and then bring it to the full Board at the February 18, 2003 Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Carpenter added that the subcommittee has the subdivision plan review issues divided between text and non-text issues. 


Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates.   Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee scheduled a meeting for February 11, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. at their last meeting.


Adjournment.  There being no further business, Mike Cooper made a motion to adjourn and

Leon Allison seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.  The meeting adjourned at

11:00 PM.






________________________                                    ______________________               

Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman                                        Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary