August 19, 2003


The Henderson County Planning Board met on August 19, 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, Todd Thompson, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Tommy Laughter, Mike Cooper and Kevin Keefe.  Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary.   Board member Cindy Dabaibeh was absent.


Approval of Minutes.  Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order and asked for the approval of the July 15, 2003 minutes.  Tedd Pearce made a motion to approve the minutes and Mike Cooper seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.


Adjustment of Agenda.   Ms. Smith suggested that Item 7 be moved after Item 8 in the interest of time. 


Staff Reports.   Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Board of Commissioners has scheduled a public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance Amendments for Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.  She mentioned that the notice went out to the mailing list of land development professionals and also that the ad will be in the Times News tomorrow.  Ms. Smith also mentioned that there are also some minor adjustments pending to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow it to be applied in Mills River.  She said there would be a public hearing at the Board of Commissioners meeting on August 20, 2003 for similar changes to many of the County’s ordinances so that they may be applicable in areas under municipal jurisdiction upon agreement between the County and the other jurisdiction.




Request for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Woodcliff Heights (File # 01-M12) – William Lapsley, Agent for DMJ, Inc., Applicant.  Mr. Cook stated that on August 28, 2001 the Planning Board approved the combined Master and Development Plan for the Woodcliff Heights subdivision.  Mr. Cook stated that William Lapsley, Agent of the applicant, provided a letter requesting an extension of the Development Plan approval for a period of one year.  It was stated in the letter the reason for the extension was because of personal reasons beyond the control of the developer, which has delayed the completion of the project.  Chairman Pearce stated that all the Planning Board has is a request for extension, but it has nothing stating the status of the improvements and the reasons for the delay, other than for personal reasons.  Mr. Lapsley spoke on behalf of Mr. Osteen, owner of the development and said he went through the Planning Department process and has obtained a number of permits for the development that were listed in the conditions.  Mr. Lapsley stated that Mr. Osteen has not proceeded with any of the improvements.  He stated that the only reason Mr. Osteen had stated was that the delays were caused by personal, family reasons and had asked for Mr. Lapsley to relay this to the Board and ask its consideration on his extension.  Mr. Lapsley said that Mr. Osteen had mentioned that his family situation has been straightened out and he hopes to begin something this fall with the development.  Ms. Smith asked, “How long is the erosion control permit good for?”  Mr. Lapsley stated that it was unlimited.  Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Osteen resubmitted this development plan tomorrow, is there nothing different in the Ordinance that would cause it, since the Planning Board has approved it, to change.  Ms. Smith stated that the developer might have some more flexibility on some road standards, but she stated that she doesn’t know whether that was an issue before.  Mr. Lapsley stated that all roads would be to NCDOT standards.  After some discussion among Board members, Mr. Carpenter stated that if there were some significant differences between what the Ordinance said when this was first approved and now, he would feel differently and added that giving him another year does not bother him because taking into account of what he has done, he feels that they were “good faith efforts.”  Board members agreed.  Walter Carpenter made a motion to grant a one-year extension for Woodcliff Heights.  Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  Ms. Smith noted that under the Planning Board’s policy more than fifty percent of the improvements would need to be installed prior to any other extension being considered.


Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase I – Proposed Amendment to Approved Development Parcel Plan for Lot Line Adjustments – Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Applicant.  Chairman Pearce stated that a quasi-judicial proceeding will be held pertaining to this matter and will consider plans to amend a development parcel known as Section 10, The Ponds, Phase 1.  Chairman Pearce asked what parties were present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding and who wish to be a party?  The following persons were identified as parties to the proceeding:  Kathleen Byrne, Lot Owner # 1020 in Carriage Park; Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC; Mr. Robert T. Wendell, Lot Owner # 1023 in Carriage Park; Derrick Cook, Planner and Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, both employed with the Henderson County Planning Department.  Paul Patterson indicated that he would recuse himself from any discussion or decision in this matter and the Planning Board agreed.  All parties to the proceeding were sworn in.  Mr. Cook gave a brief background history of the application.  Mr. Cook stated that Carriage Park, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase I, is a 7.69-acre portion of the Section 10 development parcel with 25 single-family lots. Section 10, the Ponds, Phase I, was approved by the Planning Board in May 1999. The Ponds, Phase II, of Section 10 has been amended several times.   Phase I is located in an R-20 zoning district and residential roads that meet the Special Use Permit standards serve the parcel. The property is located in a Water Supply Watershed IV (WS-IV) district.  Mr. Cook stated that the revised development parcel plan for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase I, proposes lot line adjustments for lots 1012, 1014, 1018, 1020, and 1022. The plan proposes the removal of a sewer easement along the rear of lot 1008 and indicates that sewer easements have been added that affect lots 1018, 1020, 1022, and 1023 (although the easement that appears to be between lots 1022 and 1023 is not labeled).  The review of Section 10, The Ponds, Phase I, is different than for a regular subdivision or phases of a subdivision.  Mr. Cook indicated that Staff mailed notices of the proceeding for the Amendments to Section 10 as required by the Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended) on August 7, 2003.  Mr. Cook also noted that anything contained in the Planning Board’s agenda packet was presented as evidence.


Mr. Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC stated that he was here before the Planning Board to seek a minor change to a previously approved development parcel.  He stated that what he is seeking approval for is to remove 0.09 acres of open space from where it is currently within Section 10 to another area of Section 10.  He said that three lots need to be enlarged.  He said three of the lots are not owned by Carriage Park Associates, LLC but are owned by individuals and he would like to straighten out their lot lines for their purposes.  He said normally this would be done administratively but because it deals with open space, the Planning Staff felt that the Planned Unit Development Special Use Permit rules that Carriage Park Associates, LLC, operates under requires that Carriage Park comes before the Planning Board to seek the approval of moving open space from one place to the other.  He said that in the approval of Section 10, Phase 2, Carriage Park already gave the open space for this and put it on record, so it is already on record.  He said that Carriage Park is just seeking approval to take the 0.09-acre of open space in Phase I to add to three lots.  He said in the Special Use Permit Amendment # A-3, paragraph number 25 (C5), which deals with amendments to approved common areas, states: “change in location of boundaries where the change affects the boundaries within the common areas only can be approved by the Planning Board.”  Mr. Hamlin stated that in the Conditions governing the Special Use Permit # 93-13, condition 14 dealing with open space states: “that prior to or concurrent with the recordation of any development lots, townhouse, condominiums, or apartments, the applicant shall record or provide evidence that required open space has been placed on record.”   Mr. Hamlin said that the required open space is on record and are asking the Board to adjust these lots.  He said they have been in contact with Planning Staff on the procedures of this matter and Staff suggested that it is done by the Planning Board.  He said the parties had the prerequisite pre-planning conference with Staff.  Mr. Hamlin stated that Carriage Park has met the stipulations Planning Staff set forth with a few caveats.  Mr. Hamlin stated that regarding the technical and procedural comments that Staff prepared, he said he was willing to answer them and reviewed them as follows:


1.      Plan Clarification – Note #9 on the plan states that lot line and/or sewer easement adjustments will occur for lots 1008, 1012, 1014, 1018, 1020, 1022, and 1023. Since the applicant has only shown the proposed location lots, open space, and sewer easement lines on the revised development parcel plan, one must compare the previously recorded final plat with revised plan to identify the changes. Applicant needs to review each of the proposed changes.


Mr. Hamlin stated that Lot 1008 is owned by Carriage Park Associates, LLC and has a sewer easement on the back side of the lot, so he did not think he needed approval from the Planning Board.  He added that he has copies of the Declaration, which gives Carriage Park Associates, LLC, blanket authority to have sewer easements on every piece of land in the development.  He provided a copy for the record.  He mentioned that Lot 1023 also has a sewer easement and the Declaration applies the same as with Lot 1008.  Regarding Lot 1012 and Lot 1014, there has been an administrative change to the two lots and those particular structures have been changed into a duplex unit because of some site constraints and that was approved administratively by Staff.  Lot 1018 has received 0.003 of an acre increase.  He said the people that own Lot 1018 have given an affidavit to Carriage Park Associates, LLC, approving of this increase.  Lot 1020 and Lot 1022 received 0.003 acre and 0.06-acre increases respectively because the way the builder put the house on those lots.  He said so therefore Lots 1018, 1020, and 1022 come within 0.09 acre of open space that Carriage Park Associates, LLC have put on record.  Surveyors deal with thousandths of an acre, and they only show hundredths on the plats but that it is all calculated and is all on record. 


Mr. Hamlin stated that regarding some of these other issues, it looks like Carriage Park is bringing the Board a fresh development parcel to be reviewed, but all Carriage Park is asking the Board to do tonight is review the 0.09 of an acre modification to the open space on a pre-existing, pre-approved plat.  He feels that all of these other conditions are not required and added that what these conditions imply is that Carriage Park needs a whole new plat and plan.  He said that if that is needed, it would involve thousands of dollars and hiring their planning staff as well as other people.  Mr. Hamlin feels that this is grandfathered and that they should be able to make an adjustment of 0.09 of an acre modification with Planning Board approval.  Chairman Pearce asked whether Carriage Park was intending to record the changes?  Mr. Hamlin stated that the plan will be re-recorded with these changes.  Chairman Pearce asked will this be a new plat?  Mr. Hamlin said yes.  Ms. Smith said that the new final plat requirements in Appendix 7 in the Subdivision Ordinance require that the perennial stream setback be shown on Final Plats subject to the Final Plat requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.  Chairman Pearce stated that because there are new requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance that is the reason some of these conditions need to be met.  Mr. Hamlin was concerned with the financial part his company would need to incur if they would have to do a complete new plan.  Mr. Cook stated that when a developer is presenting a development parcel all information needs to be on the Final Plat.  Ms. Smith stated that in Amendment 3 of Special Use Permit # 93-13 states “That all amendments requiring review by the Planning Board shall be made in accordance by the procedures outlined in paragraph 19 of the Conditions of SP-93-13 attached as Exhibit A.”  She said that is where they talk about the Plan; though not specific it refers you back to the requirements for new applications.  Mr. Hamlin stated that all he is asking for is modifications of what already has been presented and approved and he added that he does not feel that it reads that way.  Mr. Carpenter asked if there is anything on the plat recorded at Slide 3117, the one that is already recorded that is not on this one?   Ms. Smith stated that Staff is talking about a development plan, not a plat.  Mr. Carpenter stated that if all that is being done is modification to the plat that is recorded, then that other information doesn’t change.  Ms. Smith stated that is the question Staff needs answered because some of that might have changed, such as summary totals.  Staff had to go between plans to see what changes had been made as Staff did not have anything for sure as to what the changes were.  All we had to go by was the notes on the new plat and what Mr. Hamlin had submitted for Lots 1020 and 1022.  She stated that Staff really needs something to compare what the differences are now compared to before.  After more discussion, Board members agreed that a document indicating open space is the same as Section 1, Phase 1 would be sufficient.  Chairman Pearce feels that as long Staff has proper notes to clarify what is being changed, then the Board should not detail Comment # 2 except that the perennial stream 30-foot setback should be noted on the revised Final Plat for Section 10, Phase1.  Mr. Hamlin indicated that the perennial stream is piped and underground.  Chairman Pearce went over each condition required as follows:


Chairman Pearce stated that regarding Comment # 3, the applicant should provide a note indicating private roads on the Final Plat.  Chairman Pearce stated regarding Comment # 4, a revised Final Plat must be recorded.  Comment # 5, Open Space, states the revised plan shows the lot line adjustments for lots 1020 and 1022 that involve annexing land from the open space area that abuts the lots.  Mr. Cook indicated that the lot line adjustments for lot 1020 and 1022 serve to compensate for property the owners believed they had contractually purchased.  Ms. Smith stated that it needs to be on record.  Mr. Carpenter stated that if they deal with the open space, he feels that is the only issue in the Comment # 6 for Plan Details, but from Staff’s point of view the Board could require a letter from Mr. Hamlin stating that the plan details such as the zoning, number of lots, type of lots, parcel size, utilities, roads, length of roads, and maximum building heights, will remain the same as existed for the original Section 10, Sheet 1, Phase 1.  Ms. Smith feels that the surveyor still needs to clean up the plat with regard to updating of names.  Ms. Smith indicated that regarding Comment # 8, Site Standards, Staff would like the applicant to provide locations of buildings on the affected lots so that the adjustments can be evaluated as to their effect on setbacks and other required site standards.  Chairman Pearce suggested certification by a surveyor indicating that where the lines have been changed meets setback requirements.  Ms. Smith stated that if there is any shift in the lot line, would it affect anything that we have already issued a permit for.  Mr. Carpenter stated that since both lots were built by the same person, it would have had to pass zoning for setbacks at the time.  Ms. Smith stated that Staff does not go back out after they have issued a zoning permit.  At the time of the issuance of the permit, she said that the applicant is required to provide a sketch showing where the building will be placed on the property in relation to the setback requirements.  Ms. Smith indicated that if one of the property lines changes and it affects one of the setbacks under which the house was previously constructed, Staff wants to make sure it still meets the requirements.  Ms. Smith stated that what Staff needs is either some form of certification which states that it meets the requirements of zoning or Staff can come out to the property site and measure the property stakes to see if it meets the requirements.  Mr. Cook stated that regarding Comment # 10, sewer easements, Staff would specifically like the sewer easements labeled on the revised plan.  Chairman Pearce feels that all sewer easements should be noted on the plat and labeled. 


Kathleen Byrne, who owns the subject Lot 1020 in Carriage Park, stated that in getting their parcel staked out by Jon Laughter in 2001, they found that part of their dwelling was not on their land, but was in the open space.  She said that they have going through the Planning Staff and Mr. Hamlin in trying to rectify this problem.  She stated that she does not want to be tied with other requirements that Mr. Hamlin needs to do in order to rectify her lot line adjustment problem.  She asked the Board that they act upon this matter as soon as possible.  She provided a map of her surveyed lot as evidence.  Mr. Cooper stated that basically what this adjustment will do to her lot is that it will make it comply as opposed to a non-complying lot at present.  He said the lot lines need to be pulled back to make her lot lines right. 


Mr. Robert Wendell, President of the Homeowners’ Association of Carriage Park and lot owner of Lot 1023, said he was here on behalf of the Homeowners’ Association and for the Byrnes and Simpkins.  He reiterated what Ms. Byrne mentioned, that since it has gone on for some time now, he would stress that this matter is acted upon now so their lot lines can be corrected to conform with the others.


Chairman Pearce and Ms. Smith asked for the date of the Declaration of the sewer easement that Mr. Hamlin referred to.  Mr. Hamlin stated that there have been no amendments to the Declaration since written.  Chairman Pearce stated that the declaration would be entered as evidence.  Mr. Carpenter clarified that the adjustment involves taking part of Lot 1022 and giving it to Lot 1020.  Board members reviewed the maps of the plans dealing with this matter and further discussed the adjustments that are required.  Mr. Carpenter stated that in reviewing the plat that was recorded (he referred to Slide 3117), what that did was to dedicate that portion of lots as open space.  The old Order for Section 10 said that when the plat was recorded the open space had to be put on record as well.  According to the records, a right to that property has been given away, not all the rights, but he said if you lease a piece of property, someone still owns it but someone else has the right to use it.  Mr. Carpenter stated that he is puzzled as to who this dedication runs to, does it run to all of the Carriage Park homeowners, or their Association, or Henderson County or to whom?  He stated that he feels that the entire portion was dedicated at that time.  He said to come over and convey some of the property to Lot 1020 and Lot 1023, they might be giving or conveying something in which they don’t have all of the interests.  He feels that it is not a County problem and feels that as a Planning Board, any approval should state that the County waives whatever rights or interest they have in the dedication and allow this adjustment to go forward, but not to prejudice anyone else’s rights, whomever it has been dedicated to.  Mr. Carpenter suggested that Mr. Wendell and Ms. Byrne explain this situation to their legal counsels as there are some deeds that need to occur.  Ms. Byrne stated that she has gone to a lawyer and a title company and both said that they could not do anything for her and she did not understand why.  Board members do not feel that this particular matter is their responsibility or concern.  Mr. Hamlin stated that the Carriage Park Associates land development company still owns that open space.  It has only been dedicated as open space, but Carriage Park owns the title to it.  Mr. Hamlin stated that in amendment A-3 of the Planned Unit Development document it states that adjustments to open space can be made and therefore there is a provision for making adjustments.  Mr. Carpenter said that Carriage Park couldn’t adjust it if someone else has some rights in it.  After further discussion, Chairman Pearce stated that the Order that the Board is operating under allows amendments to the open space, but if there were questions outside of that, then that would be between the developer and the people he sells lots to and would have nothing to do with these proceedings. 


The parties had no closing statements.


Mr. Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board finds and concludes that the revised Construction Plan submitted for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase 1, of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the provisions of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Ordinance, and the Special Use Permit regulating the Planned Unit Development # SP-93-13 as amended, subject to the following conditions from the Technical and Procedural Comments:


Comment # 2 – Stream Setbacks – That the perennial stream setback should be noted on the revised Final Plat for Section 10, Phase 1.

Comment # 3 – Private Roads – That the plat should include a note stating: “The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department Transportation for acceptance into the state road system.”

Comment # 4 – Final Plat – That the applicant must record a revised Final Plat for Section 10, Phase 1, that meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a non-standard subdivision.

Comment # 6 – Plan Details – Mr. Hamlin should provide a document indicating that everything other than the open space required and the open space provided is the same as it was on the original Plan for Section 10, The Ponds, Sheet 1, Phase 1. 

Comment # 8 – Site Standards –A surveyor should certify or the applicants should show, to the Planning Staff, that the lots where the lines have been changed meet the applicable setbacks.

Comment # 10 – Sewer Easements – The easement between Lots 1022 and Lot 1023 should be appropriately labeled for the sewer easement use.  Mr. Carpenter also added a condition stating that the Planning Board agrees to approve the withdrawal of dedication to the portions of Lots 1018, 1020 and 1022, which were previously dedicated by the Plat recorded in Slide 3117.  The actions are not intended to and do not affect the rights of any other person or entity in or to the open space shown on the plat recorded in Slide 3117 of the Henderson County Register of Deeds.  Regarding Comment # 6, Mr. Carpenter amended that portion of the motion to provide that on the plat the notation which states “future development“ of The Ponds, Section 10, Phase II, Carriage Park Associates, LLC – Deed Book and Page Number 1082/296, reflect the accurate recording information for the slide that has already been recorded for Section 10, Phase II, The Ponds, and that the names of the current owners of any of the lots that have been conveyed be shown.  Chairman Pearce seconded the motion.  Mr. Thompson asked, regarding the open space the Board has been discussing that touches Lots 1016, 1018, 1020, 1022, and 1025, is that open space for everyone in Carriage Park or is it for those lots?  Mr. Hamlin stated that it is for everyone in Carriage Park.  Mr. Thompson asked whether the President of the Homeowners’ Association was in agreement with this?  Mr. Wendell stated that the Homeowners’ Association is definitely in agreement with this.  All members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce indicated that the Order would be done for the next Planning Board meeting.  Ms. Smith asked whether anyone would have an objection if the plat were done in accordance with the conditions of the motion for the Byrne and Simpkins parties before the Order is brought back to the Planning Board?  All Board members were in agreement that the plat could be done before the Order. 


Chairman Pearce stated that the quasi-judicial hearing has ended and asked Paul Patterson to join the Board for the remaining business on the agenda.







Bloomingdale (File # 03-M14) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (14 Lots on

12.84-Acre Tract off Jackson Road) - Ed Holland, Owner/Agent.  Mr. Cook apologized to the Board with regard to the extensive comments that were made regarding this Plan and having to bring forward the checklist of items that were not addressed.  He stated that it was not clear to the developer on some of the items, but as soon as he had contacted Mr. Holland, the owner and developer, he immediately addressed the issues and revised the plan but that they did not come in time before the Planning Board agendas were mailed out.   Chairman Pearce noted that in “other comments” in the packet it states:  “that after plans were submitted, Staff found that certain items checked “yes” on the checklist had not been addressed.”  Chairman Pearce asked, “Is that correct?”  Mr. Cook stated that it was.  Chairman Pearce stated that Staff was relying on the checklist to proceed.  Mr. Cook said that the procedure is to look at the checklist to see if it has been done and most importantly, Staff reviews the Plan to make sure what is checked is on the Plan.  He added that even though some of the items had been checked, he did not find them on the Plan when he was reviewing it.  Chairman Pearce said that the Board is working under the new rules that have been amended and that everything should be properly done in advance.  Chairman Pearce said that it is his feeling that if Staff notes that something is not being done; Staff should not bring it before the Planning Board for their review.  He added that he does not want to set a precedence with this and felt that he would not have accepted it and it would come before the Planning Board next month but since the sequence of the information was not on time, but was addressed soon after, he feels in this case the Board might consider hearing this Plan review.  He suggested that the Board direct Planning Staff to try to come up with some method of a more quick review or at least a fairly good verification that all of the checklist items have been received and do it in a timely manner so that it can be sent back to the applicant for the following month.  He said that when it reaches the agenda status, we might want to proceed with the review.  He asked whether the other Board members have an objection to hearing this Plan review tonight?  Ms. Smith stated that Staff has talked about this problem and made sure that the applicants reviewed the applications for September’s meeting so that all required checklist items would be addressed.  After some discussion among Board members, most agreed that they are setting precedence for this subdivision, but because it has been brought before the Planning Board on the agenda, they are inclined to hear it.  They also indicated that they would adhere to the rules set forth for any upcoming plan reviews from now on.  Mr. Holland stated that he had spoken with Mr. Cook and mentioned that if there was anything that was needed to call him.  He said that 30 days almost passed and last Thursday, he called and mentioned that there were some things required for the agenda.  He said that he had drop the items off that were required on Friday, and feels that everything now should be in compliance with the Plan review.  Ms. Smith stated that generally speaking the Staff needs to make a full review 30 days prior when the plans come to the office or, it should not go forward to the Board.  She said that she is going to try to encourage Staff to get items before the submittal deadline, which is thirty days before the meeting.  She said that the information definitely has to be submitted.  Mike Cooper asked whether the items were prepared by the surveyor or by Mr. Holland?   Mr. Holland said he prepared a lot of it himself.  Walter Carpenter made a motion to hear and review the plans for Bloomingdale subdivision.  Leon Allison seconded the motion.  Tedd Pearce, Walter Carpenter, Leon Allison, Mike Cooper, Todd Thompson and Kevin Keefe voted in favor of the motion.  Tommy Laughter and Paul Patterson opposed the motion.  Mike Cooper indicated that the next time, when applicants do not have everything that is required for the specific month’s meeting, it should be up to the Planning Staff to be the ones that are “hard-hearted” and deny their plan.  The motion carried to review the Plan.


Mr. Cook stated that the proposed major subdivision is located off Jackson Road in the Hoopers Creek area. The proposed development will have 14 single-family residential lots on 12.84-acre tract of land. The development will be served by individual water and septic. The property is located in an R-20 zoning district and not located in Water Supply Watershed district. The applicant is proposing public roads to serve the development.


Mr. Cook said that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and offers the following comments:


Master Plan


  1. Title of Plan – The applicant should submit a revised plan labeled “Combined Master and Development Plan” prior to beginning construction (Appendices 4 and 5).


Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Development Plan; the following was a list of conditions for Planning Board consideration:


  1. Title of Plan – The applicant should submit a revised plan labeled “Combined Master and Development Plan” prior to beginning construction (Appendices 4 and 5).


  1. Fire Protection – On a revised Development Plan to be submitted prior to any construction, 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).


  1. Road Name – Road names shall be preapproved by Henderson County in accordance with the Henderson County Property Addressing Ordinance. The Henderson County Property Addressing Office has stated that one of the two proposed road names, Bloomingdale Court or Bloomingdale Drive, must be changed. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proposed road name must be approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Coordinator (HCSO 170-23).


  1. Project Summary – The development plan requirements checklist shows the distance from water and sewer systems. The distance from the water and sewer systems should be noted on a revised development plan in the project summary area and such plan should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the beginning of any construction (Appendix 5).


5.            Project Summary – On a larger development plan submitted to Staff is provided a list of each lot size.  However on the project summary of all plans the minimum and maximum lot size should be listed. On a revised development plan, the minimum and maximum lot sizes should be noted in the project summary and such plan should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to beginning any construction (Appendix 5).


6.            Culverts and Drainage Plans – Culverts and drainage structures along the proposed roads need to be designed to NCDOT standards. Culverts locations,

length, diameter, and type should be shown on a revised Development Plan to be submitted prior to construction (HCSO 170-21-D, 170-29-B, and Appendix 5).


  1. Zoning – Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 will be fronted by an existing state road and by a proposed state road. On a revised combined master and development plan the project summary should be revised to note that the 50-foot front yard setback is from centerline of all rights-of-way (not just the 45-foot right-of-way). The applicant may want to have the Zoning Administrator review the building envelope prior to the final plat approval (Appendix 5).


Mr. Cook stated that these issues were brought to Mr. Holland’s attention and he provided a new revised Plan with all of the above comments met.  Chairman Pearce asked, “At this time, there are no technical or procedural comments, as all of them have been met, is that correct?“ Mr. Cook stated that he does not have any.  After some discussion, it was noted that this is not in Fletcher’s jurisdiction or in their extra-territorial jurisdiction.  Paul Patterson said that on the original Plan, Lot 13 had a stream but it does not on the new plan.  He asked if Lot 13 had a branch or perennial stream running through it?  Mr. Cook stated that he is not aware of any blue-line stream on that property.  Mr. Patterson stated that the revised Master and Development Plan and the Final Plat should show that the stream on Lot 13 if perennial and the required setback of 30 feet from that stream, if perennial,  for clarification.  Chairman Pearce stated that this is one technical item that needs to be covered.  Mr. Holland said that it is a swale, where there is water run-off and not a perennial stream, but when it rains the water goes down through there and drains underneath the culvert.  Chairman Pearce asked when is a blue line stream defined?  Ms. Smith stated the definition of a perennial stream is one, which is shown as a blue line stream on the USGS topographical maps.  Paul Patterson said that he sees a drainage pipe between lots 9 and 10 and according to the topo, the drainage appears to be flowing uphill.  Mr. Holland stated that they superimposed that USGS topo contour interval in the plan but it is not accurate because the area is flat.  Mr. Patterson also asked are the contours 40 feet?  Chairman Pearce indicated that in the memo Staff indicated that “they had walked the project terrain and the applicant provided a supplemental plan depicting the road grade and waived the Master Plan contour interval requirement of 20 feet and the Development Plan requirement of contours of 5 feet.”  Mr. Holland said that the area is flat.  Mr. Patterson said that it is hard to read the contours on this map.  Mr. Cook said that when he walked the terrain, it was a smooth incline and that there was no significant change in terrain and that they did not need the requirement of 20 feet contours for the Master Plan and 5 feet contours for the Development Plan.  Mr. James Ellis, surveyor for this project, said they do quad sheets and said that this particular area is the worst for contours.  He said that they had laid the streets out and profiled them so they know where the culverts and pipes need to go.  Mr. Cook provided a copy of the road profiles that was given to Staff that Mr. Ellis referred to and showed the Planning Board members.  Mr. Patterson stated that road grades need to be shown on the Plan as well.  Mr. Ellis stated that the roads are going to NCDOT for approval.  After Planning Board members reviewed the revised Plan and road profiles of the project, Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board approve the revised Master and Development Plan for Bloomingdale, dated and stamped August 15, 2003, with the exception that if the stream which appears to be located partially on Lot 12 and Lot 13 is a perennial stream, then it would need to be shown on the revised plan and Final Plat as well as the setback requirement.  Kevin Keefe seconded the motion.  Paul Patterson indicated that the Plan does not show a typical road section, it gives it on the cul-de-sac but not on the actual road itself.  Ms. Smith stated that according to the NCDOT manual, it is shown as it appears in their manual.  Ms. Smith said that she took it to be the road cross-section and the cul-de-sac cross section.  Because it was hard to define on the reduced copy, Mr. Patterson agreed that it is defined.  All members voted in favor.  Todd Thompson excused himself from the meeting at this time.  Ms. Smith wanted to mention to the Planning Board that they do have the authority to determine whether a subdivision plan is complete or not and deny it from the agenda.


Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff.  Ms. Smith presented the Board the Update on the County Comprehensive Plan and mentioned that regarding the US 25 North Study, Lee Smith, who helped on several occasions in the Planning Department, has taken a job in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina and was the person assigned by Benchmark on the US 25 North Study for the County.  He has been bringing to a close with Benchmark all of his projects that he has been assigned to and so therefore will be a transition period where there will be someone else assigned to the US 25 North Study.  She stated that she hopes it will not delay the project.  Benchmark does have a contract with the County to deliver a product by a certain date.  Ms. Smith indicated that she would keep the Board members posted of all updates on this matter.  She said that the County Manager is aware of this and will inform the Board of Commissioners regarding this matter. 


Ms. Smith stated that regarding the Comprehensive Plan Community Meetings, Staff is trying to get some key community contacts before we go out to each community to spread the word about the meetings.  She requested that each Board member jot down any contact names for each community so Staff can get in touch with them.  After some discussion, Mike Cooper said that he would help in the Valley Hill 1 and 2 communities and Tedd Pearce mentioned that if help were needed in the Gerton community, he would be glad to help out.


Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates.  No meetings were scheduled at this time.




Chairman Pearce announced that he has hired Kevin Keefe in a position with his company.  He said that they had discussed among each other whether this would propose a problem being on the Planning Board together.  Mr. Pearce stated that Ms. Smith talked with Ms. Angela Beeker, County Attorney, concerning this matter from a legal standpoint and she indicated that she didn’t find any particular problems.  She indicated that if the Planning Board conducted a quasi-judicial hearing and because of any conflict of interest Tedd and Kevin would need to recuse themselves, there would be two less for that subject to vote on.  He said that Mr. Keefe is also concerned about how the other Board members would look upon this situation.  After brief discussion among Board members, they were in agreement that this situation would not present a problem.


Adjournment.  There being no further business, Tommy Laughter made a motion to adjourn 

and Leon Allison seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.  The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.








Tedd Pearce, Chairman                                                        Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary