PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 18, 2003
The Henderson County Planning Board met on March 18, 2003, for its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC. Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Walter Carpenter, Vice-Chairman, Paul Patterson, Jack Lynch, Cindy Dabaibeh, Kevin Keefe, and Todd Thompson. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board members Leon Allison and Mike Cooper were absent.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order. He asked for the approval of the February 18, 2003 minutes. Kevin Keefe noted one change to the minutes. He referred to page 11 of the draft minutes, which showed a typographical error (Tedd Patterson should read Tedd Pearce). Jack Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes with the change and Walter Carpenter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. Ms. Smith suggested that Item 5 be moved after Item 7 in the interest of time. All Board members agreed on the adjustment.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Commissioners scheduled a public hearing for the 191 rezoning request for April 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the West Henderson High School Auditorium.
Revised Order for Carriage Park, Section 15, Carriage Crest – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that the Applicant notified the Planning Department of an error in Finding of Fact # 3, of the order regarding the number of units proposed. She stated that after Staff checked, they found that Finding of Fact # 3 is in need of correction to reflect the 48 townhomes instead of 55 townhomes as previously indicated and adding the statement (a total of 55 dwelling units). Ms. Smith asked that the Planning Board approve the revised order. Mr. Carpenter made a motion that Finding of Fact # 3 for Carriage Park, Section 15, Carriage Crest, be revised to show 48 townhomes for a total of 55 dwelling units instead of the 55 townhomes as previously shown. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all Board members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce welcomed to the Planning Board the new Board member, Cindy Dabaibeh, and introduced her to all the Planning Board members.
David and Rebecca Nabers Industrial Subdivision – Combined Master and Development Plan
Review (3 Lots off Egerton Road, Mountain Home Industrial Park) – Steve Waggoner, Agent.
Mr. Cook stated that the Nabers Industrial Subdivision is a 4.76-acre tract located off North Edgerton Road and Carolina Industrial Court. Mr. Cook distributed some photos regarding this subdivision to the Board members. The development is for 3 commercial/industrial lots and the property currently contains a storage facility on lot 1. The lots will gain access from an existing State Road. The property will be developed in one phase. The development is located in an I-2
General Industrial zoning district and some of the property appears to be within the 100-year and 500-year flood plain. The site is not located in a Water Supply Watershed District and municipal water and sewer will serve the property.
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and found that all the requirements have been satisfied concerning the Master Plan. He stated that with regard to the Development Plan, he asked Steve Waggoner, agent for the owner/developer, to review and address the following comments:
3. Water Supply and Sewer System - Mr. Waggoner stated that presently there is water available. Regarding sewer systems, the owners do not plan on hooking up. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board needs some proof from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department to substantiate that the other two properties can get water and sewer service or that there is a way to resolve the sewer issue. Mr. Waggoner stated that the plans are for just a parking lot. Mr. Patterson stated that technically this commercial subdivision might be able to hook up to the existing sewer system from Bradford Wire, but he feels that until something is done at the site they would not need to have sewer. He stated that they could change what they have to individual sewer and Mr. Waggoner agreed to do so. He also indicated that the owner could build the property up in the floodplain and put his unit on the property and the septic system outside of the floodplain. Mr. Patterson said if they decide to later tie onto the public system it would not matter. He feels that it is not reasonable to put in a well for an industrial site. Mr. Waggoner stated regarding the fire hydrant, there is one located across the street from the proposed development. Chairman Pearce stated that this item will need to be amended to indicate that public water supply is proposed and a letter from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department must be submitted which states that there is sufficient capacity to make connection to the utility. The applicant also needs to provide evidence that the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department have approved the water supply system plan. Final approval of water supply must be provided and such system must be installed prior to the Final Plat approval. With regard to the sewer system, Chairman Pearce said the applicant agreed to change the proposed sewer system from public to individual, on a revised Development Plan and Subdivision Application. Chairman Pearce indicated that the applicant must meet the City of Hendersonville’s minimum requirements for fire hydrant installation and on a revised Development Plan the nearest fire hydrant must be shown on the plat.
Mr. Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the David and Rebecca Nabers Industrial 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 move that such Plans be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies Comments #1, #2, and comment #3 (showing the change to individual sewer system), #4, #5 and #6 on a revised Development Plan and that those plans be approved subject to those conditions. Paul Patterson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
on Work of Subdivision Issues Subcommittee – Planning Staff. Mr. Cook distributed revised
appendices since more changes had been made after the Planning Board packets went out.
Mr. Cook stated that the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee combined with the Planning Staff
has constructed a final draft of the revised Appendices for implementation. He stated that the
Committee and Staff hope that it will bring about alignment between the Subdivision Ordinance
and the Appendices and clients will bring in more concise Master and Development Plans to
expedite review and approval of the subdivision when it comes before the Planning Board. He
stated that he feels this is just one step that has been implemented to hopefully take place for
Staff. Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith what were the changes that were made and what
changes do you need to discuss with the Board. Ms. Smith reviewed the changes as follows:
Ms. Smith stated that the last sentence in the paragraph regarding the Master Plan Requirements and Development Plan Requirements, formerly read: Please check Yes or No each column or NA where the items will not apply to your plan. She stated that it was not grammatically correct and changed it to read: For each item below, please check Yes or No or write NA where the items will not apply to your Plan. She said further regarding the change in this sentence, she asked if someone writes in “NA,” formerly we have not asked the applicant to explain the reason for NA, and she stated she does not know whether they should be the ones to determine whether it is NA or not. After some discussion about this sentence, Board members agreed that the sentence should read: For each item below, please indicate whether the requested information has been provided.
Another change Ms. Smith mentioned was under the Development Plan Requirements, on the second page which read: “Size of lots to .1 acres given (not including road right-of-way). She felt that the word “given” should be removed. She also mentioned other typographical errors that Staff would clean up.
Ms. Smith felt that although Appendix 6 is not used for the time being, she felt that it should be noted “reserved” for future use.
She indicated that regarding under Final Plat Requirements, she stated that this will apply to minor, family, and major subdivisions and asked whether the Board would want citizens coming in and filling this form out or whether this should be with each Final Plat when it comes in or whether this should be a Staff check list to make sure these items listed are there? Chairman Pearce stated that this was meant to be for both, that way people would know what they are required to have. He added that when they come in for their pre-application conference, there would be certain things based on the size that Staff can say they will not be needed. Ms. Smith said that minor and family subdivisions do not have pre-application conferences, so therefore this form will be filled out when they bring the plat in. She stated that the applicants would need some assistance with this form especially regarding the required certificates section. Ms. Smith stated with regard to the amendments that are necessary to make some of these items applicable in the text, did the Board intend to adopt the appendices at tonight’s meeting? Chairman Pearce stated that the Board has looked at everything and there is nothing that is more stringent that would be a violation of the Ordinance. He said that the only thing that is more stringent is when we expect to have it and that is not particularly covered in the Ordinance, but it seems that it is in the Board’s jurisdiction to ascertain when we have a completed application and when to reasonably expect that information to be provided. He feels that there are a couple of things of a lesser requirement than what is in the Ordinance and he does not feel that it would pose any problem for anyone. Chairman Pearce stated that the Committee was under the impression that the Board would go ahead and approve the appendices and then they the very earliest possible time, the revisions to the Ordinance would be brought to the Subcommittee and then they would be voted on to be forwarded to the full Planning Board for their recommendation and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners at that time.
Mr. Patterson noted several minor changes. He stated that regarding Appendix 7, Final Plat Requirements, he feels that the word “licensed” should be removed in any sentence referring to “a professional/licensed land surveyor….” He also indicated that regarding the Development Plan Requirements, the sentence that Ms. Smith referred to concerning removing the word “given”, should include a more precise size of lots to read “0.1” instead of “.1”.
Chairman Pearce said that subject to the items that were changed, he asked for a motion. Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve the amended Appendices 4 – 7 (Master Plan, Development Plan and Final Plan Requirements) of the Subdivision Ordinance with the changes discussed. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce stated that any new applicants should be given this data and any ones before this information will be covered under the older methods. Ms. Smith suggested that Staff would have another mailing to all Land Development Professionals regarding this amended appendices. She suggested that another subcommittee meeting could be scheduled before May, to insure that all information is prepared for the subcommittee members.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that at the last Planning Board meeting, she had mentioned that the Commissioners had asked Staff to bring back proposals for getting some of these projects done and since then the proposed schedule was presented to them and during that meeting the Commissioners asked about what was to be done about the Mills River Study and the US 25 North Corridor studies. Staff went back to the schedule to see how both of these studies would fit in. She stated that Staff brought a new schedule to the Commissioners at their March 3, 2003 meeting. The Board asked about Mills River and the land use study that was completed in 2001 and with the sewer project which is finally starting to get closer to the point where the County will have the money in hand along with the grants. The Commissioners now would like to see some of the land use planning done in that area. She stated with the incorporation effort in Mills River that is complicating things a bit, but Staff has talked with the leaders of the incorporation effort and they are willing to work with Staff on trying to get planning done in the area where Staff’s study area is overlapping their incorporation area. She said that Staff told the Board of Commissioners that a zoning plan could be started with current staff within current time frames and the Board of Commissioners agreed and told Staff to go forward. Ms. Smith stated that she and the County Manager plan to meet on March 20, 2003 with the Land Use Committee of the Mills River Incorporation to show them what Staff has put on paper regarding future zoning and in turn we will be looking at some of their proposals. She stated that the complicating factor in this is that Staff is working under the current Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Land Use Map that the Planning Board did for the Mills River area had some mixed-use items, which are not found in the current Ordinance. Chairman Pearce asked what was the decision factor in tabling the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite? Ms. Smith stated that it was because of Staff and time. She stated that the old 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommended that the Zoning Ordinance amendments, but the project was not started until 1999, and it started to bump into the new Comprehensive Plan. She stated that at the Board of Commissioners’ Retreat, it was discussed that if we are going to change the Zoning Ordinance and work on a plan and the plan would have some recommendations for changes to the Zoning Ordinance, we might end up rezoning people several times, which is one of the reasons it was put on hold for awhile. She stated that the districts they came up with for the Zoning Rewrite may not be ultimately what the County wants after the County does the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the other factor is time, which has been spent doing two diverse projects and not being able to get either done. She stated that it was a hard recommendation to see the Zoning Rewrite tabled at this time because of the many hours that had already been spent revising it.
She stated that regarding the US 25 North study, Staff had discussed two alternatives. The first was to add a minimum of one month to each of the phases shown on the original CCP project schedule adding about six months to the overall project and the second suggestion was to hire an outside consultant to assist with the US 25 North project, which the Commissioners did not have a problem with. She said there is going to be a long public input process for the CCP and staff figured that it could tie into the US 25 North Project at the same time. She stated that the Planning Board will be involved in the Study and that it would take approximately 8 to 12 months to complete the project. She stated that the Mills River Study and the US 25 North Project were the two items that influenced the changes in the time frame and the budgets. Mr. Lynch added that the transportation plan has been updated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, so it falls in the same scope of this CCP project. He stated that the implementation will be done by April 2004 and public involvement will not be until February 2004, but they will be back to us every month on the transportation plan from NCDOT. He also informed the Board that there will be a MPO meeting on March 20, 2003 and hopefully there will be more information provided at that time.
Meeting Date for April Planning Board Meeting. After conferring with all the Planning Board
members, and knowing that at this time Tedd Pearce and Kevin Keefe would be the only
Board members to be absent from the April 15th Planning Board meeting, it was decided among all Board members that the regular scheduled Planning Board meeting set for April 15th would remain on that date and not be changed.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Walter Carpenter made a motion to adjourn and
Todd Thompson seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at
Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary