PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 17, 2003
The Henderson County Planning Board met on June 17, 2003, for its regular meeting at 7:05 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, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Tommy Laughter, Cindy Dabaibeh, and Kevin Keefe. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board members Mike Cooper and Todd Thompson were absent.
Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order and presented a framed print of the historic courthouse to former Planning Board member Jack Lynch in recognition of his service on the Planning Board. All Board members expressed thanks for his service and wished him well.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce asked for the approval of the May 20, 2003 minutes. Walter Carpenter made a motion to approve the minutes and Kevin Keefe seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on July 7, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. on the rezoning request by Bernie Mann for the Philip Mann property.
Board members Paul Patterson and Tommy Laughter arrived at the meeting.
Request for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Silverstone, Phase II (01-M02) – Gary Corn, Agent for Grant Mountain Properties, Inc., Owner and Developer. Paul Patterson stated that he has worked on the engineering of this project and wanted to be recused from any discussion or decision regarding this matter. Leon Allison made a motion to approve his recusal and Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members were in favor of the motion. Mr. Cook stated that the Planning Board approved the revised Master and Development Plan for Silverstone, Phase II on February 27, 2001. Mr. Cook stated that Gary Corn, Agent of the applicant, provided a letter requesting an extension of the development plan approval because of environmental conditions in completing the road construction of the development. Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Corn mentioned in his letter that 75% of the roads are completed for this project at present. Mr. Cook presented the Master Plan and the revised Development Plan that Mr. Corn has presented that has been altered from the original Development Plan that was approved in 2001. Mr. Cook stated that with the extension, the changes that the applicant has presented will become an administrative approval by Staff. Mr. Cook indicated that the same number of lots will remain. Mr. Corn explained the changes that have been made on the revised Development Plan. He stated that the change is in regard to a new local residential/collector road. He stated that NCDOT was not happy about the number of lots that US 64 East would serve from Phase I section as they have a certain number that it can serve, so the developer decided to change the lots and the design of the road and bring out the entrance to Slick Rock Road so there would be less traffic entering US 64 East. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was anything different in the statute between 2001 and today that if this would be resubmitted, not the development parcel but the Plan, that it would violate the statute? Mr. Cook stated there would not be. Ms. Smith stated that they might benefit from the changes regarding the curve radius, but there is nothing that we need that is more restrictive. Chairman Pearce asked if there was anything that would reason not to grant an extension? Ms. Smith stated no, and that under the Planning Board’s policy it meets the standards. Walter Carpenter made a motion to grant an extension to Silverstone, Phase II, for one year. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Eagle’s View (00-M12) – Revised Master and Development Plan Review (26 Lots in Two
Phases, 13 in Phase I and 13 in Phase II, Off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Road) - James
Mark and Dianne Lea Bishop, Owners. Paul Patterson recused himself from any discussion or decision regarding this subdivision because of conflict of interest with no objection from the Planning Board. Mr. Cook stated that the Planning Board approved a Master and Development Plan for Eagle’s View on June 27, 2000 and approved an extension for the Development Plan on June 18, 2002. This extension expires this month and the Applicants have submitted a revised combined Master and Development for review and approval by the Planning Board due to some changes in the property and the design of the subdivision. The property is a 22.10-acre tract located off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Roads and is proposed for 26 single-family lots in two phases (13 lots in Phase I and 13 lots in Phase II). He stated that the development is located in an Open Use zoning district and will be served by private water, individual sewer and public roads. He stated that the property is not located in a Water Supply Watershed district. Ms. Smith stated that they are submitting a revised Master and Development Plan for Planning Board review, which would start their two-year period. Mr. Carpenter added that this would not be an extension but an entirely new approval. Ms. Smith said they had some substantial changes, which were the reason for the revised plans. She added that Board members might remember that in the past they had road issues. Mr. Cook stated that this is an entirely new submittal and therefore they can receive another two-year approval for their Development Plan. He said regarding the revised Development Plan, approval is contingent on the following comment:
Mr. Carpenter asked whether they could construct a road on 18% grade. Ms. Smith stated that because they are proposing public roads, the grade can be up to 18% and the developers will need to pave the road. Staff does not find this to be an issue. Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Eagle’s View 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 moved that such Plan be approved subject to the following Condition: the applicant satisfies Comment 1, regarding soil erosion and sedimentation control before construction begins. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II (98-01P) -Proposed Amendment To Approved Development Parcel – (21 Single-Family Detached Units off Haywood Road) - Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC. Paul Patterson stated that he would recuse himself, as he would be a witness for this quasi-judicial hearing and has been involved in the project. Leon Allison made a motion to approve his recusal and Kevin Keefe seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce stated that this will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding and the proceeding will consider a revised Development Parcel Plan for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. Chairman Pearce then asked all parties to the proceeding including Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Dale Hamlin, Manager and Developer, Bob Grasso, Land Planner for the Carriage Park project, 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 it is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on Haywood Road approved by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners under Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 and that it was approved for a total of 695 units on 392.3 acres. He said that through the Special Use Permit for Carriage Park, the Board of Commissioners assigned to the Planning Board the responsibility to approve individual Development Parcels within the project. He stated that Carriage Park has been having an ongoing issue dealing with the gravel road that extends through Section 10, called “The Ponds.” He stated that Carriage Park has recently resolved this matter. With that resolution they have proposed a new plan with the removal of that gravel road and they have extended a portion of the project, which is what Carriage Park, refers to as Lot 17, beyond the original boundary that was initially approved. At this time Mr. Danny Ray entered the meeting and asked whether he could be a party to the hearing. Ms. Smith stated that Chairman Pearce would need to swear in Mr. Ray as a party to the hearing. He was sworn in and Mr. Cook continued his presentation. Mr. Cook stated that Phase II Section 10, is supposed to have twenty-one (21) lots and he noted that they have had some lot number changes within Phase II and the lot configuration is somewhat different from the previous Plan. He indicated that the lot sizes have been increased from what was initially approved by the Planning Board. He said that this is permissible because of the fact that they have not recorded a Final Plat and doing such adjustments still falls within the Planning Board is review of the previous lot sizes and does not pose any problems with the Special Use Permit. Regarding the change in the Section 10 boundary, Mr. Cook referred to a section of the Special Use Permit indicating that these changes fall within changes Staff can approve and constitutes a 1.8% difference in what was originally noted in the boundary of the property. The Plan proposed a residential street and changes the Golden Pond Court half -T-cul-de-sac to a bulb cul-de-sac. The removal of the “existing gravel road” allowed the cul-de-sac change. The plan shows the appropriate cross-section for the residential road and the new cul-de-sac according to the Special Use Permit standards. Mr. Cook stated that other comments include:
1. Erosion Control Permit – The Applicant states the necessary erosion control permit (required by the May 4, 1999 Order Granting Approval of Section 10) has been acquired. Evidence of approval of an erosion and sedimentation control needs to be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval for Section 10, Phase II.
2. Open Space – The Construction Plan states 9.01 acres of the Phase II project is dedicated as open space with only 5.19 acres required. Based on the proposed 21 lots, 10.10 acres of land is necessary to meet the R-20 density requirement. The development parcel size is 13.46 acres, which surpasses the density requirement by 3.36 acres.
Mr. Cook stated that he wants to know what is this open space that they are allotting, is it for all of The Ponds or is it just specifically for Phase II? He added that if it is just for Phase II, he does not know how this could be possible. He said he would like clarification of this.
Also, Carriage Park must dedicate the required open space prior to Final Plat approval by Planning Staff for Phase II.
3. Final Plat – If the Development Parcel Plan for Section 10, Phase II is approved, the applicant must record a Final Plat for Section 10, Phase II that meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a Non-Standard Subdivision.
4. Since the “existing gravel road” issue appears to have been resolved with the adjoining and nearby property owners, and condition “a” of the November 15, 2000 Order Amending the May 4, 1999 Order, to provide an at-grade intersection of the “existing gravel road” and Mill Pond Road, is no longer required.
5. Carriage Park Associates, LLC, has reduced the proposed lake (now pond) to 8,500 square feet. The square footage reduction alleviates the need for Carriage Park to get a State Permit for dam construction therefore, condition “b” of the November 15, 2000 Order Amending the May 4, 1999 Order regarding submitting DENR or other agency approval for the lake is no longer needed with the Applicant providing appropriate documentation of this conclusion from DENR or other agency.
6. Lot 1042 (referred to as lot 17 in the Descriptive Narrative) existed in what was previously outside of the Section 10, Phase II, boundary. As the Applicant stated in the Narrative, the lot constitutes a 1.8% increase in the Section size. According to Special Use Permit Amendment SP-93-13-A3-f (b)(1) on page 7, if a Development Parcel Boundary Line increases or decreases by more than 10%, the adjustment must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Since the boundary line change for the Development Parcel represents 1.8%, the Zoning Administrator can technically review the adjustment for approval, however the Planning Board can include the adjustment in its review and approval.
Mr. Cook stated that this was discussed previously.
7. Stream Setbacks – Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II has perennial streams indicated on it per the most recent USGS Topographic map. A minimum thirty-foot setback for buildings or other structures, excluding bridges and culverts, is required.
Chairman Pearce asked whether something should be noted on the Final Plat
indicating this? Mr. Cook stated that normally this is noted on the Final Plat.
8. Private Roads – When private roads are shown, the plat should include a note stating: “The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the state road system.”
Mr. Cook noted that the entire packet given to each Planning Board member should be entered as evidence.
Chairman Pearce asked each party whether they had questions of Mr. Cook. Ms. Smith stated that she has no specific testimony, but is mainly present to answer any questions, particularly on the history of Carriage Park.
Mr. Bob Grasso, Land Planner for the project, gave some clarifications regarding the comments mentioned by Mr. Cook. Mr. Grasso noted the following comments:
Comment 1. Erosion Control Permit. He stated that a revised plan has been submitted under the original permits, so it should be considered a revision and that the erosion control measures are already in place on the project.
Comment 2. Open Space. Mr. Grasso stated that the excess acreage Carriage Park has would be applied to future phases and that 3.82 acres of open space will be applied to the overall of the open space. Mr. Cook asked if 9.01 acres is the total and if they only needed 5.19 acres. Mr. Grasso said “yes.”
Comment 3. Final Plat. Mr. Grasso stated that Mr. Steve Waggoner will prepare the Final Plat.
Comment 4. Existing Gravel Road. Mr. Grasso mentioned that this issue has been taken care of. Mr. Carpenter stated that there have been two or three Orders relevant to Section 10. He wanted clarification that the Planning Board is going to amend the last order. Ms. Smith stated that she feels that would be the easiest thing to do because the second Order refers back to the first Order on some issues and it would be prudent to go ahead an amendment the last Order. Mr. Carpenter stated that seems to be the method we should use and deal with just the approvals dealing with Phase II of the project and not consider Phase I. Ms. Smith agreed.
Comment 5. Proposed Reduction of the Pond. Mr. Grasso stated that the major changes to Phase II of this project was that there is no dam with the pond and what Carriage Park is doing instead of a dam, is building a plate arch bridge that will span the stream and putting a pond off to the side that is going to be excavated and will be outside of the thirty-foot buffer. He said this will take them out of any permits by NCDENR.
Comment 6. Lot 1042. Mr. Grasso had no comments.
Comment 7. Stream Setbacks. Mr. Grasso said that there are two perennial streams going through the property and they have finally received a Corps permit for the big dam. A lot of mitigation that is taking place for that dam is happening on these two perennial streams. He stated that there will be some enhancement and restoration projects. He noted on the project map the areas of these projects and noted that all the permits have been received. He also stated that he has no objection to having the stream setbacks noted on the Final Plat.
Comment 8. Private Roads. Mr. Grasso said that all their roads are being constructed to NCDOT standards. Ms. Smith stated that Staff requires a separate note on the Final Plat if they are not going to be turned over to the State as this is a new requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance recently approved. Mr. Grasso stated that this will show up on the Final Plat and be noted.
Chairman Pearce asked all parties whether they had any questions for Mr. Grasso. Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Grasso referred to a construction of a bridge and Staff has not received any cross-section or diagram regarding the bridge. Mr. Grasso stated that borings were denied last week and that they are waiting for the soils report from the geo-technical engineer and after they receive that, they will have the bridge design. He again mentioned that it will be a plate arch bridge that will span the stream. He stated that that particular bridge had to be put into place with the Army Corp. of Engineers, so there will be no impact on the stream with that bridge. Ms. Smith stated that there are bridge standards that have been added to the Subdivision Ordinance but she said she needs to find out whether those standards apply to a non-standard subdivision.
Mr. Danny Ray, adjacent property owner to Carriage Park, stated that with regard to the gravel road settlement, Carriage Park has built a road to State standards, but he has not received a right-of-way deed as of yet. He said that as far as the road, the ditches have not been cleaned up thoroughly because when it rains it fills up with leaves, etc., and should be cleaned and the drainage needs to be filled. He added that there has been nothing planted on the banks to hold the soil, so when it rains there is more silt that goes into the ditch and stops up the drain. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Ray whether he has signed a release regarding the existing gravel road? Mr. Ray stated that with all the paperwork, he is not sure. Mr. Carpenter stated that the Planning Board is not here to enforce the agreement and that the Board cannot deal with the agreement as it is not pertinent to the matter. Mr. Carpenter added that Mr. Ray needs to discuss this matter with Carriage Park. Mr. Ray stated that these matters were more directed at Mr. Hamlin of Carriage Park. Chairman Pearce stated that this needs to be discussed between he and Mr. Hamlin outside of this meeting. Chairman Pearce stated that unless it effects this approval, the Board can only go so far in their involvement. Mr. Tommy Laughter asked, “Where is Lodge Road?” Mr. Cook described on the subject parcel map the location of Lodge Road. Mr. Cook added that from his understanding of the agreement, the settlement of this gravel road is that Carriage Park has removed it and presented a new road for the property owners that are adjacent and bordering the property and has paved the road. He said that Carriage Park has put up a gate where the adjacent property owners are on that road going out and believe that is what Mr. Ray is referring to.
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Hamlin, “What is the situation on the existing gravel road right-of-way?” Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates clarified Condition 4 in reference to Mr. Ray’s comments. Mr. Hamlin stated that the existing gravel right-of-way has been shut down and a new 18-foot paved roadway going from Leverette Road has been set in place. He said roadway agreements have been signed by the Johnson and the Ray parties, there were three different parties and all of the payments have been made, and the land has been purchased from McMinn (at the intersection with Leverette Road) to give the road enough right-of-way to meet State standards. The right-of-way agreements have been signed and executed as well as the deeds. These deeds are for allowing the new right-of-way and giving back to Carriage Park Associates the old right-of-way. He added that the deeds are being held by Mr. Ray’s attorney, pending some final approval from the County to agree to the 50-foot right-of-way, which is all in process, but are held in trust. Mr. Hamlin stated that all the agreements have been met. He stated that the monies that were required from Carriage Park have all been paid out, so Carriage Park has met the roadway agreement in its entirety. He stated that the last item for closure is that Carriage Park is to write their lawyer a letter that states “the 18-foot pavement is in place” and then their lawyer is to record all of these documents. Mr. Hamlin said they have no disagreement as everything required has been done and both parties have done everything they agreed to do. Chairman Pearce asked whether Staff needs to have a copy on file of the agreement showing that there has been a release of the right-of-way? Mr. Hamlin submitted two copies of the agreement as evidence. There was some discussion by the Board about the agreement. Chairman Pearce stated that what has been brought up between Mr. Ray and Carriage Park Associates would remain outside of this Board and between both legal counsels to settle. Mr. Hamlin added that it is a private driveway but has been built with 18 feet of pavement.
Ms. Smith stated that regarding the bridge question and the procedure for review of nonstandard subdivisions, according to Section 170-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance, it mainly deals with public utility use, special use lots and cemetery lots, which are some types of nonstandard subdivisions and the other type mentioned is the procedure for review of townhouse developments. It states that “in cases where townhouse development review is not superseded by other regulations, such as zoning, such townhouse developments as defined herein shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. Application for review shall be made to the Subdivision Administrator. Plans for such development shall be prepared in conformance with Section 170-16 and with Articles IV, V, and VI of this chapter, except that the following sections upon request, may be modified by the Planning Board: minimum curve radius; intersections; right-of-way access; lot dimensions and lot configuration and frontage. In such cases, the Planning Board may use discretion in applying subdivision standards.” Ms. Smith stated that she feels if it is superseded by zoning, and in this case it is, that the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance may not directly apply. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels there is also a requirement, even though the roads are private, that they meet NCDOT standards. Ms. Smith stated that is in their specific Special Use Permit. Chairman Pearce said, “ wouldn’t the bridge would be covered under NCDOT standards?” Ms. Smith stated that there are NCDOT standards for bridges, but they were too excessive, so the County has their own standards on bridges for private roads. Ms. Smith stated that according to their Order, Carriage Park needs to build their roads to NCDOT standards. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Bob Grasso, “was it your anticipation regarding the bridge that it would be designed to NCDOT standards?” Mr. Grasso stated, “yes.” Chairman Pearce feels that the bridge issue is a non-issue and is covered under NCDOT standards. Chairman Pearce reviewed conditions for the present Order, beginning with the Staff comments:
Comment 1: Erosion Control Permit – this is a technical comment and something that needs to be done as a condition.
Comment 2: Open Space – Carriage Park Associates, LLC must dedicate the required open space prior to Final Plat approval by Planning Staff for Phase II. This is a condition of the prior Order.
Comment 3: Final Plat – Recordation of a Final Plat for Section 10, Phase II that meets the requirements of a non-standard subdivision is required. This is a condition of the prior order.
Comment 4: Regarding the “existing gravel road,” the Order should state that the condition in Paragraph 1a. of the November 15, 2000 Order is rescinded. Mr. Carpenter added that the Findings of Fact for the prior Order were correct at that time.
Comment 5: Reduction of the Proposed Lake (pond): There is no approval necessary because of how it has been modified, therefore there is no need to rescind the condition from the November 15, 2000 Order. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions should state that the lake/pond will be less than the size required to obtain a State permit. No new condition is needed. If the lake (pond) becomes larger then Carriage Park must submit evidence that plans for the proposed lake (pond) has been approved by NCDENR and any other agencies having such authority prior to approval of any final plats for Section 10, Phase II.
Comment 6: Lot 1042 (referred to as lot 17 in the Descriptive Narrative) existed in what was previously outside of the Section 10, Phase II, boundary. The lot constitutes a 1.8% increase in the Section size. Since the boundary line change for the Development Parcel represents 1.8%, the Zoning Administrator can technically review the adjustment for approval, however this can be included in the Order as an informational item. No condition is needed.
Comment 7: Stream Setbacks – A condition should be added that states that the 30-foot setback from perennial streams must be notated on the Final Plat.
Comment 8 – Private Roads – A condition should state that the Final Plat must include a note stating: “The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the State road system.”
Other: Bridge Standards – The Order should note that the applicant has stated that any bridge(s) constructed over Mill Pond Creek will meet NCDOT standards. This should also be a condition.
Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the revised Construction Plan submitted for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II, of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Ordinance and the Special Use Permit regulating the Planned Unit Development (# SP-93-13, as amended) except for the items addressed on the Technical and procedural comments section of the Staff memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant and further moved that the revised Construction Plan for Carriage Park, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II, be approved and the November 15, 2000 Order be amended subject to conditions previously reviewed by the Chairman being entered into the Order. The packet submitted by Staff will be entered as evidence. Chairman Pearce directed Staff to draft an Order based upon the information and conditions stated, including the presented adjustments to Staff’s presentation with the addition to the bridge standards and that this Order be set forth to approve the request for amendments on Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce stated that the quasi-judicial hearing is over.
Lone Laurel (03-M09) – Master and Development Plan Review (24 Lots Off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Road) – Stacy Rhodes, Agent for Wayne Nix & Wife; Jeffrey W. Nix & Wife, and Dale L. Nix, Owners. Paul Patterson recused himself from any discussion or decision because of a conflict in interest. Leon Allison made a motion to approve Mr. Patterson’s recusal and Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Mr. Cook stated that the property is an 18.96 acres tract located off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Road and is proposed for 24 single-family lots and the development will be completed in one phase. He said that the development is located in an Open Use zoning district and will be served by private water, individual sewer and private roads and that the property is not located in a Water Supply Watershed district. Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and that the Master Plan requirements have been satisfied. Regarding the Development Plan approval is contingent on the following comments:
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
2. Road Grade - The applicant has proposed private gravel roads to serve the project.
The grade requirement for private gravel local residential subdivision roads is that they not exceed 15%. The grade for a portion of the proposed Bent Laurel Court around the entrance of the cul-de-sac and fronting lots 20, 22, 23, and 24 grade is shown on the plan as 17.9%. The portion of the proposed road that exceeds 15% grade must be paved according to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance (HCSO 170-21E). The Ordinance also requires that portions of the road that are within 50-feet of the parts of the road section exceeding 15% must be paved on each side.
Mr. Cook stated that a revised Development Plan with a cross-section showing the required paving standards for the portion of the road that must be paved should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to construction.
Mr. Stacy Rhodes, agent for the project, stated that the developer plans on paving the road when the project is complete. He stated that the developer did not want to pave the road until all of the development was complete because of the construction trucks that are continually passing on the road at present that could break up the pavement. Ms. Smith stated that the developer could ask for an improvement guarantee for that section but still submit the revised plan. Mr. Carpenter asked whether the developer could get well and septic on 0.37 of an acre of land? Mr. Rhodes stated that they can but the house size will be quite small. Mr. Rhodes stated that there is no written recorded right-of-way and on Lamb Mountain Road they have reserved back from the edge of the pavement, twenty-five (25) feet, which on up the mountain, the new section, there is a 50-foot right-of-way, so they have tried to line it up and will be reserved on the developer’s side, 25 feet. Mr. Carpenter asked, “Can they get up to 23 with the width they have?” Mr. Rhodes stated they could and showed on the map and described that the grade on Bent Laurel Court is less than the other area he pointed to and that is the reason why they are developing larger lots in that area to ease the grade situation. Ms. Smith stated that the developer could submit a revised Development Plan to show where they will pave and then he can post a bond for that section to cover that until they want to pave the whole thing.
Mr. Allison made a motion to move that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Lone Laurel 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 1and 2 before construction begins. Walter Carpenter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Ms. Smith wanted some feedback by Stacy Rhodes about the new checklist system, since his subdivisions were the first ones to use the new Appendices. Mr. Rhodes stated that he liked the new checklist and stated that he found it very helpful and feels that it is necessary for the Planning Board to move the item along when it is on the agenda for approval. Mr. Rhodes suggested that a submittal of the maps possibly in layers, showing overlays could be helpful to the Planning Board members. Chairman Pearce stated that this could be discussed and considered at the next subcommittee meeting.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that the position of
Project Manager has been filled with a current Staff member, Josh Freeman, and that we will
be looking to hire someone to replace his old position. Ms. Smith stated that the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, US 25 North Study and the transportation plan would be Mr.
Freeman’s main focus. Chairman Pearce asked what will be Mr. Freeman’s future after all of
these studies are finished? Ms. Smith stated that the implementation of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan will take a lot of Mr. Freeman’s time, which will mean small area plans similar
to the Mills River Study and that Mr. Freeman will still remain a full-time County employee.
Ms. Smith stated that since Mr. Freeman’s appointment there has been a lot going on. There
will be a schedule to meet on getting the survey done and the community meetings will be
planned. She stated that there will be a number of items listed on the update for next month .
Mr. Allison inquired as to how fast will the meetings proceed? Ms. Smith stated that the
meetings are scheduled to get started mid to late August and at that time there will be one a
week until the end of November. She said that the meetings will be held in the fire districts at
7:00 p.m. on Thursday evenings. She stated that they will probably merge Bat Cave and
Gerton into two meetings and there will be a make-up meeting in the daytime for those
who could not attend the meetings in the evening. Should there be any inclement weather at
the time of the meetings, they will be made up. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels it would
be advisable for each Board member to participate in some way as it will be coming back to
the Planning Board eventually for study.
Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance – Planning Staff. Ms.
Smith said that she does not have anything to submit. She said the County Manager was not ready to submit any material and was not sure if they will be proposing something regarding a group-development issue. This matter could come up at next month’s meeting and stated that there is a bit of urgency regarding this matter, so if the County Manager does get material for this matter, there might be a special called meeting scheduled to discuss this issue, but she mentioned she is not anticipating that at this time, but that she wanted to make the Board members aware.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Paul Patterson made a motion to adjourn and
Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 P.M.
Tedd Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary