JANUARY 20, 2004


The Henderson County Planning Board met on January 20, 2004, for its regular meeting at 7:09 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the County Administration Building, 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, NC.  Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chair, Walter Carpenter, Vice Chair, Leon Allison, Mike Cooper, Tommy Laughter, Vivian Armstrong and Paul Patterson.  Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner, Autumn Radcliff, Planner, Karen Smith, Planning Director and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary.   Board members, Cindy Dabaibeh and Todd Thompson were absent.


Adjustment of Agenda.   Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order and noted that due to the length of the agenda, the applicant for Item 12, regarding the Proposed Motocross Racing Facility, is willing to continue his item to another meeting date.  Chairman Pearce asked Michael Edney, representing the applicant for Item 12, to clarify whether a continuance of his item would be agreeable.  Mr. Edney stated that understanding the length of the Planning Board’s agenda, a continuation to either this Thursday or next Tuesday would be agreeable with his client.  Chairman Pearce then made a motion to continue the Planning Board meeting for Item 12 and possibly other issues if need be, to Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the County Administration Building at 100 North King Street.   Chairman Pearce stated that with the approval

of Leon Allison, he asked that his rezoning request, Item 9, be moved after Item 11.  Mr. Allison was in agreement.


Approval of Minutes.  Chairman Pearce asked for the approval of the December 16, 2003 minutes.    Mr. Allison mentioned that there was a typographical error he found on page 13 of the “draft” minutes.  The correction was noted by the Secretary.  Ms. Armstrong noted several typographical errors and all were noted by the Secretary.  Chairman Pearce made a motion to approve the minutes for December 16, 2003 with the corrections noted.  Vivian Armstrong seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.


Staff Reports.   There were none.




Status Report on Planning Initiatives - Planning Staff.  Ms. Smith noted that the update report was presented at the joint meeting earlier in the month. 




Amendment to Carriage Park – Section 14, Carriage Forest (Sewer Lift Station Lot) Dale Hamlin, Agent, Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Applicant.  Paul Patterson said that he would recuse himself, as he has been involved in projects with Carriage Park.  All Board members approved his recusal.  Chairman Pearce stated that this item would be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding and the proceeding is to consider an amendment to Section 14, Carriage Forest.  Chairman Pearce then asked all parties to the proceeding Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Dale Hamlin, Manager and Developer and the Planning Department Staff, (Derrick Cook, Planner, and Planning Director Karen Smith) to be sworn in.  Mr. Cook stated that Carriage Park is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on Haywood Road approved by the Henderson County Board of Commissioners and was approved for a total of 695 units on 392.3 acres.  He stated that Section 14, Carriage Forest, encompasses 14.42 acres of land within the R-30 zoning district and in the Watershed IV district.  He stated that the Planning Board originally approved the Development Parcel Plan on March 26, 1996 and the Final Plat was signed on August 19, 1996 with a 20-foot sewer easement stretching throughout the site.  He stated that with regard to this application, the applicant is proposing a sewer station lift lot sewer lift station lot, which encompasses 0.037 acres of land, which will have a 30-foot right-of-way extending to it.  He stated that this parcel will be within the open space area of Carriage Park and will be deeded to the City of Hendersonville, which is the reason why it is before the Planning Board.  He explained that when you have any kind of open space that is disturbed within Carriage Park, such as if it is not going to be deeded over to the homeowners association, then the Planning Board needs to review and approve that distribution of land.  Mr. Cook reviewed the list of Staff comments as follows:


  1. 30-foot right-of-way – The Applicant proposes a 30-foot right-of-way to access the sewer lift station lot. The dedication of a right-of-way can provide use by more than the utility vehicles to service the lift station. Staff believes that unless the Applicant designates the right-of-way as a utility easement, the right-of-way should be built to “neighborhood drive” road standards. As defined in #SP-93-13 a “neighborhood drive” is “a paved access typically serving by direct access, townhouse, condominiums or apartments, with 3 foot shoulders, such road having a 30 foot access easement (including utility use) and having 18 feet (width) of pavement (I-2 Asphalt), 1 ˝ inches in thickness on a 6 inch ABC Stone base and not exceeding 18 percent grade.” On a revised site plan a cross-section of a “neighborhood drive” should be shown.
  2. A acknowledgement should be made stating that the proposed amendment otherwise appears to comply with Special Use Permit # SP-93-13 (and as amended), the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, and the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance.
  3. If the amendment is approved, the Applicant would need to record a new plat showing the changes in the open space. Such plat must meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for Non-Standard subdivisions.
  4. Open Space – Unless the Applicant can provide evidence that the 0.037-acres of open space lost from Section 14 is represented in recorded open space, the 0.037-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 sewer lift station lot in Section 14.


Ms. Armstrong asked whether the proposed 30-foot right-of-way was in the same location as the original 20-foot easement?  Mr. Cook stated that it somewhat corresponds with the proposed easement.  The easement that they have goes right through the property altogether including that area.  Mr. Cook showed on a map the area the easement goes through.  Ms. Armstrong asked whether the proposed 30-foot right-of-way is in addition to the 20-foot easement?  Chairman Pearce stated that Mr. Dale Hamlin could address that issue.   Ms. Armstrong also asked, “Why does the City of Hendersonville require a 1600-foot lot, which appears to be what this space encompasses?  Chairman Pearce added that this question should be addressed as well to Mr. Hamlin.  Ms. Armstrong also asked, “What kind of improvements will the City of Hendersonville require in the right-of-way?”  Chairman Pearce said that this, too, would be better directed to Mr. Hamlin than County Staff. 


Mr. Hamlin stated that he is concerned about the right-of-way matter.  He said that what was brought to the Planning Board is an open space adjustment of 0.037 acres.  He said that Carriage Park does have the amount in its open space acreage to handle this and has evidence to this effect.  He added that Carriage Park has an extra acre at this time.  Mr. Hamlin said that the right-of-way is a new issue that he is not sure about as he said that he does not want to build a neighborhood drive because it will not be servicing apartments, condominiums or townhouses.  Chairman Pearce asked whether it is a utility easement?  Mr. Hamlin said that he is not deeding the utility easement and that it is open space.  He mentioned that Carriage Park has utility easements and rights-of-way everywhere that service various situations.  He added that he does not remember that this classification was something the Planning Board required when it is just a roadway servicing a sewer station that the City of Hendersonville required.  Mr. Hamlin stated that it is through open space.  Chairman Pearce stated that the question is, “Should it be designated as a utility easement?”  Mr. Hamlin asked, “What is a utility easement as he can not find it in the County’s Zoning Ordinance?”  He said that there is no definition of a utility easement, only a definition of an easement.  Mr. Carpenter stated that the Board is trying to help him because the alternative is it will need to be a road and be built to road standards.  Mr. Hamlin said that he feels this might be the first time the Planning Board has asked of me to describe rights-of-way and utility easements.  These descriptions show up on plats when they are approved, but when a change is made from time-to-time on something, a utility easement has not been in front of this Board before.  Mr. Carpenter added that he has never seen one regarding Carriage Park.  Chairman Pearce said that there are other lift stations in Carriage Park.  Mr. Hamlin said that there are five lift stations.  Chairman Pearce asked how were the others handled?  Ms. Smith replied by stating she did not know.   Mr. Hamlin stated that normally when they are near a road Carriage Park builds a driveway and deeds a little lot to the City.  The City then owns the small lot and driveway.  He said that in this case, this is a remote location and the City declined a previous access, as it was too steep.  The 20-foot easement is for the sewer lines that are already in the ground.  The 30-foot easement is for a private road that takes the City down to service the sewer lift station.  Mr. Hamlin stated that he would accept the utility easement if that is something he needed to accept, but he would like to just have it as an easement as he might want it as a walking trail as well.  Mr. Carpenter stated that as a utility easement he feels that it could also be a walking trail.  Mr. Carpenter stated that showing the road as a utility easement would mean that the City Water Department would have the right to drive on it to get to the sewer lift station.  Chairman Pearce asked, “On your other lift stations, you say you have a small drive-way to it, was the drive-way also deeded to the City?”  Mr. Hamlin said yes, as in those cases it was right off of the road.  Ms. Smith stated for an example, there is a lift station in Section 10 near Leverette Drive, and there was access there already and it was shown on the plan.  Ms. Armstrong asked Mr. Hamlin whether the City of Hendersonville is requiring Carriage Park to make any improvements inside this easement or right-of-way?  Mr. Hamlin said that they are not requiring any improvements.  Chairman Pearce said that it is normal for utilities to request deeded property for things that they are going to take possession of and maintain.  Chairman Pearce stated that the City is taking title to the actual lot where the lift station is.  Chairman Pearce feels that there shouldn’t be a problem labeling this as a utility easement, but he asked if it is labeled as a utility easement, does that preclude any other use?  Mr. Carpenter said that no, it just says that it can be used as a utility easement and if it is used for something else too, that is fine.  Mr. Carpenter said that Carriage Park can not stop the City from driving in or out of there as they have a right-of-way over it, but Carriage Park still owns it, or the homeowners will or whomever ends up with it.  He said they could do whatever with it as long as it is consistent with the City being able to drive into it.  Ms. Smith stated that Staff is just trying to make sure that it doesn’t become access to a lot.  Chairman Pearce asked if the Board could make a condition that states the utility easement could not be access to a lot?  Mr. Hamlin stated that it actually couldn’t be access to a lot as they need lot access on paved roads.  Mr. Cooper stated that the access does touch Lot 18 in this area.  Mr. Hamlin added that there are sedimentation ponds in that area that need to be serviced.  Chairman Pearce feels that the Board could make a condition that the easement or right-of-way can not be used to access any lots.   Mr. Carpenter requested a copy of the recorded plat for Section 14 from Staff.  He said that he feels this is part of what was designated as open space when Section 14 was recorded.  He said that the other part that is east of there is not part of any section that has not been dealt with.  He said that when you put this plat on record, you designate this area as open space, is it not fair to say that at that time the owners then have some undivided interest in that open space?  Mr. Hamlin said that the open space has been conveyed to the Homeowners Association, however this is a lift station for the use of the utility system that the homeowners have bought into.  He said that in the declaration in the covenants  of the Carriage Park Homeowners Association contemplates having lift stations and water booster stations because of the terrain of the subdivision, so it is not taking anything away, it is just getting the City to accept their responsibility for maintaining it.  Mr. Carpenter asked if Carriage Park Associates, LLC could convey something to the City that they don’t own with a right-of-way of common area that they do not own?  Mr. Hamlin stated that this is the third time Carriage Park has asked for an adjustment to open space by the Board and each time you have had the same questions.  He said the open space is dedicated but not deeded to the Homeowners Association and that the company still owns it.  Mr. Hamlin feels that this is an administrative measure, not a Board measure, but because of the way the documents are written, they are here in front of the Board tonight to seek an adjustment in open space. Mr. Hamlin feels that this will happen from time to time.  Mr. Hamlin asked Mr. Carpenter whether he thinks Carriage Park could change their documents to allow a little latitude on things like this that do come up on a large development?  Chairman Pearce stated that this is another issue appropriate for Staff and the Carriage Park people to sit down and discuss and perhaps come up with some minor adjustments to the amendments that the Planning Board might want to consider and the Board of Commissioners would need to approve.  Chairman Pearce stated that the open space has not been deeded to the Homeowners Association but it is being recorded that this amount of space is being set aside.  He asked whether it would be appropriate to consider as part of any letter of approval, should we approve it that the Homeowners Association approves the adjustment to the open space?  Mr. Carpenter feels that any approval by the Board would not affect the homeowners rights.  He does not want the County trumping the homeowners rights or interest in the open space already dedicated and that whatever is done by the Board would be subject to the homeowners interest in the open space.  He feels that Carriage Park Associates, LLC, will need to deal with the homeowners in order to have good title to convey to the City.   He added that he couldn’t imagine anyone arguing about it.  He does not feel that the County should say it is ok, if there is a real issue as to the ownership of this and the rights of all the parties, or that the Board should not bind the Homeowners Association.  He added that it does not bother him to approve this, subject to that. 


Chairman Pearce directed that Staff bring back the Findings of Fact and Conclusions consistent with the decision the Board makes.  The approval should include the following conditions: 

(1)   Regarding the 30 foot right-of-way, the Board feels it is appropriate to label it as a utility easement and a note should be placed on the plat stating that it can not be used as access to any residential lot in the subdivision.

(2)   The proposed amendment otherwise appears to comply with Special Use Permit # SP-93-13, as amended, the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, and the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance.

(3)   The Applicant should record a new plat showing the changes in the open space, which would meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for non-standard subdivisions.

(4)   That the Applicant provides evidence that the 0.037-acres of open space lost from Section 14 is represented in recorded open space and that the lift station lot in Section 14 (0.037 acres) is dedicated as open space somewhere else in Carriage Park to meet requirements.

(5)   That the Board approves the amendments without any prejudice to the rights of the Homeowners Association or others in and to the open space dedicated in Section 14 (Slide 2227 of the Henderson County Registry).

Ms. Armstrong made a motion to approve the amendment to Carriage Park, Section 14, Carriage Forest, (Sewer Lift Station Lot), subject to the comments discussed above.  Tommy Laughter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  Chairman Pearce stated that the Findings of Fact would be brought back to the Board at the next Planning Board meeting.  Ms. Smith asked if Carriage Park could record the plat prior to the Order coming back to the Board at the next meeting, if everything is in compliance?  All Board members agreed that there is no objection to recording  the plat prior to the Order being approved.


Riverwind Section IV  - Master Plan and Development Plan Review for Property Located off Etowah School Road – (102 Single-Family Lots on 35.90 Acres) – Gary Queen, Agent for Carrollwood Development, LLC, Owner.  Mr. Cook said that Riverwind was originally brought to the Board in 1997 and was approved on August 26, 1997 and on January 26, 1999 the project was granted a development plan extension for Section IV.  He said that at that time, the applicant was not able to complete the project and it expired.  The current application is a reapplication for Section IV, which encompasses 35.90 acres of land with 102 single-family residential lots.  He said that it is in the Open Use district.  Public roads, public water, and a community septic system would service the property.  The property is not located in a Water Supply Watershed Protection district, but portions of the project are in a floodplain.  Mr. Cook stated that all technical requirements were satisfied regarding the Master Plan.  He said that with regard to the Development Plan, his comments are as follows:

1.      Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The applicant should submit notice from NCDENR that a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan has been received or provide documentation that no plan is required prior to beginning construction (HCSO 170-19).

2.      Common Area – The Applicant has designated a 9.4-acre common area at the entrance of Phase IV.  If applicable, future structures on the common area must meet the applicable zoning or other ordinance requirements and be clearly identified for their designated use on the Final Plat (Section 170-31B).

3.      Farmland Preservation – On the Final Plat, a statement should be noted saying the subdivision lies within ˝ mile of the French Broad Farmland Preservation District (HCSO 170-35 and Appendix 7).

4.      Perennial Stream Setback – The Applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback from perennial streams.  However, the stream illustrated on the Development Plan is not shown on the most recent USGS topographical map.  The County does not require the 30-foot setback noted on the Plan, but since the applicant has imposed the 30-foot setback, such setback should be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).

5.      Road Grade – The Applicant has provided the approximate road grade for the proposed public roads.  On the Final Plat, conformance with the road grade standards of the NCDOT will need to be certified (HCSO 170-21 Table 1, 170-21E).

6.      Public Roads – Since the Applicant has proposed public roads to serve the development, on the Final Plats, the Applicant should have an NCDOT Engineer seal with signature acknowledging that the proposed road design meets NCDOT standards (Appendix 7).

7.      Water Supply – The Applicant did supply a letter of water capacity from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department.  The Applicant must meet the City of Hendersonville’s minimum requirements for fire hydrant installation (HCSO 170-20).  Final approval of water supply system must be provided and such system must be installed (or an improvement guarantee for such system must be posted) prior to the Final Plat approval, if applicable. 


Mr. Patterson asked why Section IV is not defined by metes and bounds?  Mr. Tom Jones, agent for the applicant, stated that it could be an omission on his part.  The internal line for the entire project, the southern boundary, is an internal phase line as this project was done in three phases.  He said that Phases 1 – 3 have been completed and Phase IV is before the Board tonight.  He said that they do have the metes and bounds on the outer boundary, which would be between Phase IV and the surrounding property owners.  He added that there aren’t metes and bounds on what would be considered a phase line between Phase 3 and Phase IV and he will add that to the Plan.  Mr. Carpenter said that there is a large portion in the floodplain and it concerns him.  Mr. Jones stated that the original Plan from 1997, was for 149 lots and that actually went all out to the edge of the property.  He said that it is true that the vast amount of the property is in the floodplain, but one of the things they did to redesign Phase IV when the current applicant bought it was to pull away from that floodplain and minimize the fill to the greatest extent possible.  He said it does not eliminate all fill in the floodplain but it is minimized from what the Plan previously called for and they also eliminated a stream crossing through the addition of fill that would have gone on the top area.  Mr. Carpenter said that it shows a 100-year floodplain and asked if there is a 25-year or 50-year floodplain?  Is there something that exists that is less than a 100-year floodplain?  Mr. Jones stated that usually you consider the 100-year floodplain line and the 500-year floodplain line, which is the fringe, and there is very little difference in this case in those two lines.  He added that you usually do not consider floodplain less than the 100-year floodplain line.  Ms. Armstrong asked, “Would those lots be filled so that the finished floor will be above the 100-year floodplain?”  Mr. Jones stated that this is correct and is the plan.  He said that is why they pulled that in and minimized the fill.  From a practical, environmental and cost-wise standpoint, it is more practical to build these 102 lots than the 149 lots that were originally proposed.  Chairman Pearce said that Henderson County does not have a flood damage protection ordinance.  Ms. Smith said that NCDENR might have something to say about it with regard to erosion control plans and also the Corps of Engineers might have something to say about filling in the wetlands, but it is not directly a flood damage situation.  Ms. Armstrong referred to an issue that arose in the joint meeting [Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and Planning Board] discussions regarding the people’s concerns about building in a floodplain and she thought about that when asking questions about this development.  Ms. Smith stated that the County has talked about doing an ordinance and are in the beginning stages of looking at it again.  Mr. Patterson stated that regarding the road alignment on Jonquil Drive there is some discontinuity on the curve radius in that area and he asked why?  Mr. Jones stated that they will try to make that a smooth continuation of the road alignment and will line it up properly with the existing road.  Mr. Patterson stated that on Lot 8, it seems that the right-of-way on Beechnut Drive was changed from 50 feet to 45 feet.  He asked why was this done as it appears it is serving at least another 25 lots on that road, which makes it a collector road by definition again.  Mr. Jones stated that it would be up to County Staff to determine what a right-of-way width is going to be required.  He said it was their interpretation that any given house would go the shortest distance, in which case, 20 houses would not be serviced by any portion of Beechnut Drive after it “Ts” off there, so that was the thought.  He stated that they would be glad to look at that again if it needs to be 50 feet for a greater distance.  Mr. Carpenter feels that it should be 50 feet.  Chairman Pearce said that you could say that they are only going to the next cul-de-sac, but he feels that Beechnut Drive and  Tranquil Drive encompass enough lots that they would be required to have a 50 foot right-of-way.  Mr. Cook said he sees what Mr. Patterson is saying but said he believes that what Mr. Jones felt was that he had a break in that intersection, which would allow him to go down to 45 feet.  Chairman Pearce stated that if you use logic here, you would have to assume Beechnut Drive stops somewhere between 24-25 lots.  Ms. Smith stated that you count dwelling units having driveway access on the subject road and dwellings on side roads which feed the subject collector road, but the last block of the collector ending in the dead end, may be designated under local residential standards.  Mr. Jones asked about changing it to a 50-foot right-of-way to Tranquil Court?  Chairman Pearce said that he feels all of Beechnut Drive needs to be 50 feet.  Ms. Smith stated that if they are willing to do the 50-foot right-of-way, that fine, but Staff is not sure where all of the driveways are going and there are some corner lots as well.  Chairman Pearce asked Staff, “What are NCDOT standards on that?”  Ms. Smith said it states that for residential collector roads under NCDOT standards, a 50 foot right-of-way is required.  She said they define their collector roads differently than the County does for private roads.  Ms. Smith noted that the plans propose public roads, therefore they must meet NCDOT right-of-way standards.  Mr. Jones asked whether it could be worked out with Staff and when the plat is recorded?  Mr. Carpenter stated that if NCDOT signs off on it, he has no problems with it.  Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Riverwind, Section IV, 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 he further moves that the Master Plan and Development Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:  That the Applicant satisfies comment 1 before constructions begins, and comments 2 – 7 on the Final Plat or by Final Plat approval.  In addition, that the metes and bounds on the phase line of Phase IV be designated.  Tommy Laughter seconded the motion.  Mike Cooper, Tommy Laughter, Tedd Pearce, Walter Carpenter and Leon Allison voted in favor.  Paul Patterson and Vivian Armstrong voted against the motion.  The motion carried. 


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-03-03 to Rezone Approximately 12.31 Acres Located on South Lakeside Drive, Across from Lake Osceola, from R-20 (Low Density Residential) to R-10 (High Density Residential) – Todd Leoni, Agent for Camp Riley, Inc., Applicant.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Leoni, applicant, to speak first on this rezoning issue as per his request.  Mr. Leoni stated that he is trying to find a way to develop this property into some nice homes.  He said he has owned this property since 1991 and went to camp there when he was a youth.  He lives in Miami, Florida, but purchased this property in hopes of having a camp on it, but it never happened.  He said that he had rented the property to the YMCA for approximately seven years and since then has left the property undeveloped.  He said that there are a few problems with the property.  One, the property needs a sewer system to be developed because the property won’t perk and in order to accommodate the proposed development he would need to spend approximately $ 300,000 to $ 500,000 to bring sewer and a lift station to the site.  Mr. Leoni said that at the present, the property is zoned R-20, which could accommodate 24 homes.  He said he is looking for a higher density in order to accommodate this development.  He feels that the Lake Osceola area is one of the most beautiful areas in Henderson County and feels that this area has not been developed in the right way.  He said that he has discussed the proposed development with a land planner and a developer but feels that the development needs to be feasible before he can begin developing anything on this site.   He said that it is located in the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the City of Hendersonville and had asked the City whether they had planned on annexing his property into the City in the next few years, but the City had said they had no intention on doing this.  He said that he had spoken with the City Planner, Roger Briggs, regarding sewer, and he had mentioned that it would be no problem if he would pay for it.  He feels that everyone in the area would get use out of this because everyone at present is on a septic tank.  He mentioned that he is also the owner of the Lake.  He said that if he can develop this parcel the way he would like to develop it, it would have homes ranging from $ 175,000 - $ 250,000.  He feels that it would not only improve that area, but the entire Osceola Lake area, which he feels has been neglected.  In closing, he requests the Board consider changing the zoning to a higher density where he can make this property beautiful and feasible for him to do it.  Mr. Allison said with regard to the Staff’s comment in our packets, he is under the impression that the Board can not approve the rezoning request without City water and sewer and can not make a recommendation on the rezoning contingent on him bringing in sewer.  Mr. Carpenter said that he does not interpret that in that way.  He said that what it says on R-10 that it is expected that water and sewer will be available to each lot, but he has never read it to say that something couldn’t be rezoned if it didn’t have water and sewer.  Ms. Smith said that anytime the Board has had any higher density, rezoning requests, water and sewer has been present.  Mr. Carpenter feels that it is a significant issue, but it is not an "end-all" because it is not there.  He added that the Board could not say we’ll rezone the area if you bring the sewer in.  Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Radcliff to give Staff’s input.


Ms. Radcliff clarified the district text for R-10 zoning and stated, “This district is intended to be a high-density neighborhood consisting of single-family and two-family residences and small multifamily residences.  It is expected that public water facilities and public sewer facilities will be available to each lot, providing a healthful environment.”  She said that it is expected to be there but it is not a condition of whether or not it is rezoned, as there are plenty of districts out there that get rezoned where sewer and water is not available.  She added that Staff is always faced with the issue of whether we want to provide sewer and water to areas where we want higher density development or are we to zone areas for higher density development and let that guide where water and sewer is extended.  She said that is something that the Board should also keep in mind.  This proposed zoning area has a total of 12.31 acres and is currently R-20 zoning, a low density residential district.  She stated that the big difference between R-20 and R-10 zoning is that you can have two-family dwellings, which allows for duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes, which would allow up to a four family attached unit.  R-10 would also allow for garage apartments, one per lot.  She said that with the current size of the property, without allocating any land for roads, setbacks or other uses, there could be roughly 53 two-unit buildings or 35 three-unit buildings or 26 four-unit buildings on the property.  She added that R-10 would allow for 53 homes compared to 26 homes under R-20 zoning.  Another difference is the lot size and setbacks.  Ms. Radcliff showed some photos of the property in relation to adjacent uses in the area.  She stated that the subject parcel is surrounded by single-family residential uses except for its frontage along South Lakeside Drive.  She added that the majority of the uses surrounding the subject parcel are residential with the exception of some nearby commercial uses, including Crooked Creek Golf Course located in the Crooked Creek Subdivision , Kanuga Timesaver Market, located southwest of the subject parcel at the intersection of Kanuga Road and Crail Farm Road, Hendersonville Golf and Country Club, located northwest of the subject parcel, and Rubin’s Osceola Lake Inn on Willow Road.  She added that most of the lots in that area do not conform to the R-20 zoning district lot size, but most of them currently have homes on them.  Chairman Pearce asked would they conform better to R-10 than R-20?  Ms. Radcliff stated that the majority of the homes in the area would conform to the R-10 zoning district.  Ms. Radcliff stated that with regard to the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Plan identifies the area as appropriate for residential but does not say what density that residential should be.  She said that right now, Staff recommends that Rezoning Application R-03-03 as it is submitted, be denied.  She said that it is based solely upon the following reasons:  Although it is consistent with the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (map and text), no density is specified for this area and since the request is for an R-10 zoning district and there is no sewer there, that it would not be the most appropriate use for it.  Although public sewer lines are within eight tenths of a mile of the subject parcel, the City of Hendersonville has no plans to consider the annexation of this area and therefore the burden of providing sewer service to the property would be on the property owner.  The county does not have conditional zoning, and although the Board may consider the possibility of sewer services being extended, it cannot grant the rezoning based on the extension of sewer lines to the property as a condition.  She added that the Board should keep in mind that the size of the tract,  which is 12.31 acres, is inside of an R-20 zoning district.  Even though the ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction) boundary is across the way with R-15, it would basically be an isolated area.  Mr. Carpenter pointed out on the lot size conformity map (enclosed in the Board’s packet) that there are some lots that are non-conforming in the R-20 district that are R-10 zoning size lots.  Ms. Radcliff stated that this map generally gives the Board an idea, if you decide to approve this request, what the surrounding character of the community is at present.  Chairman Pearce opened public input at this time. 


Dorothy Parramore  She stated that she is a neighbor of the Camp Riley property and has lived in that area for twenty-three years and realizes that Mr. Leoni has a beautiful piece of property.  She said that she has watched it go to various camps.  She really hoped that the property would never be developed, but it will become developed someday.  She stated that she does not object to an R-20 development, but objects to it being rezoned to R-10.  She said that her reasons for that is that she feels that the area is used as a recreational area for many people all times of the day now and that would increase considerably.  The increased number of people in that small area would increase the traffic. She stated that if it were going to be developed, she would like to see it remain R-20.

Diane Simpson.  She stated that she agrees with Ms. Paramore and would have no objections to it being an R-20 development, but is against R-10 for the same reasons.  She said the lake and area is beautiful.

Bill Harper, Jr.  He said that he has lived in the area for thirty-five years.  He feels that there is  more foot traffic around Lake Osceola than they have in Patton Park.  He said it is a true family atmosphere there.  He feels that putting in a high density area would not be a good idea.  He said he would like to see the County buy that tract of land and make it into a park.

Judith Sloan.  She asked whether this is considered an official zoning hearing?  Mr. Carpenter stated that the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Commissioners and then the Commissioners have the final say on it, and they have a public hearing.  She asked,” When are the adjacent property owners notified?”  Chairman Pearce stated at the Board of Commissioners level.  She said that she owns property on Bonner Street and expected the zoning to remain R-20.  She said that most people have three lots in the area and the neighborhood does not look like an R-10 neighborhood.  She encourages any of the Board members to come out and see the area.  She feels that R-10 would devalue the present property and finds it odd to take a piece of a subdivision and make it high density housing.  She said that the roads are very small in that area which would cause congestion.  She said that she is not against developing the land and for the owner to make money off of the land, but she wants to have some protection. 


Mr. Leoni said that he did not expect that he would have this opposition to the R-10 zoning and is concerned about the area and the neighbors.  He asked whether it would be possible to request R-15 instead of the R-10, since the next door properties are zoned R-15 that are in the City’s extra territorial jurisdiction?  He asked if he could recommend changing his zoning to a more medium density as that might do less harm to the neighbors and bring down the density?  Ms. Smith stated that he could amend the application accordingly.  Mr. Carpenter stated that there are several ways Mr. Leoni can go about this.  One, he can amend the application from R-10 to R-15.  Two, he could consider R-15 district in addition to R-10 and three, for the Board to consider both even over your objection.  Mr. Leoni said he would go for R-15, if it would please the neighbors, which would bring down the density to medium.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Leoni whether he is asking to amend the rezoning request to consider R-15 rather than R-10?   Mr. Leoni said “Yes.”


Ms. Radcliff reviewed the differences between R-10 and R-15.  She stated that R-15 is a medium density residential district that consists of single-family and two-family residences and small multi-family residence.  She said that it is expected that public water facilities will be generally available to each lot providing a healthful environment.  She said that the residential development maybe dependent upon septic tanks systems for their sewage disposal.  R-15 allows for about the same uses as R-10, but the difference would be the lot size and setback requirements.  R-15 has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for single-family dwellings and 7,500 square feet for two or more families.  She said that this means on the 12.31 acres without allocating any land for roads, setbacks or other uses, there could be 35 homes versus 26 homes in R-20 and versus 53 homes under the R-10 district.  Also in R-15 there could be 35 buildings of two-family dwellings, 23 buildings of three-family buildings and 17 buildings of the four unit dwellings.  She said that this district would reduce the development down from the R-10 district to almost half.  Chairman Pearce stated that there is a building height in R-15 of 35 feet that is not required in R-10.  Chairman Pearce asked each person who spoke under public input whether the R-15 zoning changed their opinion over the R-10 zoning?  Individually each person still was not in favor of the zoning change, whether it being R-10 or R-15.  Ms. Armstrong asked whether the change in the application would change the Staff’s conclusions?  Ms. Smith stated that Staff would still be looking at rezoning an area inside of R-20.  Ms. Smith said that she does not feel it would change our recommendation.  Ms. Radcliff feels that Staff still has the same concerns with R-15 as we do with R-10 in that area.  Ms. Radcliff stated that she feels that the Board should consider that if sewer were in that area, would R-10 or R-15 be appropriate?  Mr. Allison said that if you change to R-15 he feels he does not see him afford sewer for that development nor under the R-10 development.  He feels that it is not appropriate or viable for that area to have R-15 and would vote no.  Mr. Patterson stated that there is more of an issue than sewer, but there is no way to go R-15 or R-10 without sewer and he would vote no.  Ms. Armstrong stated she does not feel that the applicant has met his burden and feels that he will find another option, but she can not support this rezoning application.  Mr. Carpenter stated that he is concerned about the roads in that area as they are small and adding more traffic would add considerably more problems to them.  He also feels that there is no change in conditions as to how it was before.  He said, “If it was appropriate before why is it inappropriate now?”  Is there something that has been changed externally?  He feels there hasn’t been.   Chairman Pearce said that based on other applications that have been brought to the Planning Board on this particular piece of property, there has always been a problem with traffic congestion and feels that is one of the biggest considerations and if anything has been changed.  Mr. Carpenter made a motion to send to the Board of Commissioners an unfavorable recommendation on rezoning application R-03-03 as amended to R-15.  Vivian Armstrong seconded the motion.  All members were in favor of the motion. 


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-03-05 to Rezone Approximately 107.5 Acres Located off Crab Creek Road, Hidden Lake Road, and Hidden Cove Lane, from OU (Open Use) to R-20 (Low-Density Residential) – Lynn Matykiewicz, Agent for Hidden Lake Estates Association, Applicant.  Paul Patterson recused himself because of clients he has in the proposed rezoning area.  All Board members were in favor of his recusal.  Ms. Radcliff stated that this application was submitted on December 18, 2003 to request that the County rezone multiple parcels totaling 107.5 acres located off Crab Creek Road, Hidden Lake Road and Hidden Cove Lane, from an Open Use zoning district to an R-20 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district.  She stated that the subject area borders to the north the Kanuga Conference Center and is about one tenth of a mile from a T-20 (Low-Density Residential with manufactured homes) and a small portion to the northeast that borders an R-40 (Estate Residential) zoning district.  She stated that the Open Use zoning district allows virtually anything by right.  There are a few uses that are allowed in the Open Use district but are governed by other ordinances, which include the manufactured home parks and the communication towers.  She said that also vehicle graveyards, manufactured home graveyards are permitted with standards.  The other uses that would need to come before the Board of Commissioners would include incinerators, solid waste management facilities, mining and extraction operations, concrete plants, asphalt plants, junkyards, motor sports facilities, slaughtering plants, amusement parks, chip mills and heavy industry.  She stated that the R-20 district is a single-family residential zoning district, which allows no commercial activities by right.  She said that it is strictly for site-built and modular residential units and would not allow manufactured homes.  Churches and other small related uses are allowed by right with standards.  New lots must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet.  Setbacks are 75 feet from the centerline of a major street, 50 feet from the centerline of all other streets and 25 feet from the side and rear property lines and there is no maximum building height for principal structures.  Ms. Radcliff said that the subject area is currently utilized for single-family residences.  She showed on a current zoning map that the majority of the uses surrounding the subject area are residential with the exception of some nearby commercial uses and camps, with some undeveloped forest land.  She said that most of the subject area is already developed with homes on it.  On a R-20 lot size conformity map, there is a sizable area surrounding the subject parcel that conforms to R-20 requirements and only a few lots that would not conform to R-20.  She pointed out the subject area that is proposed for R-20 and noted that there is one parcel inside this proposed area that would not meet the R-20 requirements and currently does not have a home on it.  She added that it does not mean that they could not build on it, it just means that it would require some extra steps for the property owner.  The owners would need to go to the Zoning Administrator and prove that the lot existed as it did prior to zoning, which would have been in 2001, and prove that it was not subdivided.  If it was found as a non-conforming lot, they would still need to meet the setback requirements for R-20 and if they could not meet the setbacks, they would then need to go before the Board of Adjustment and ask for a variance.  Ms. Radcliff stated that Staff generally supports rezoning application R-03-05 based on the following:  The proposed rezoning is consistent with both the future land use map and the text of the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

The rezoning request demonstrates that there is a considerable amount of support for amending the official zoning map to protect the residential uses within the subject area, and to eliminate the potential of haphazard commercial and industrial development within the subject area.  The Staff supports rezoning the subject area to an R-20 zoning district due to the current land use, lot sizes, lack of public water and sewer, and the broad range of uses that could occur under the current Open Use designation.  Staff is conscious of the applicant’s long-term and ongoing efforts and support to zone the area for residential purposes. Ms. Radcliff stated that Staff does have some concerns regarding the rezoning application.  She stated that the entire Hidden Lake Estates Subdivision is not included in the rezoning application.  There is also one large parcel that is not included in the rezoning application, which is approximately 24.9 acres, and there are parcels within the Hidden Lake Estates Subdivision that would be almost completely surrounded by the proposed R-20 district.  She said that these areas would create holes or pockets of Open Use zoning and Staff finds it difficult to support the original rezoning request if such parcels are excluded.  Ms. Radcliff stated that Staff recommends three alternatives.

Alternative 1.  Staff recommends that the Planning Board make either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on the rezoning application, as submitted, to the Board of Commissioners and then the Planning Board consider immediately initiating its own rezoning amendment to rezone the isolated parcels within the subject area to R-20 if appropriate, which she showed on Staff’s recommended rezoning map which encompasses approximately 142.14 acres of land.  She added that there was a letter sent out to each of those owners saying that the rezoning application had been submitted and that they were initially part of it either by signature or by verbal agreement with the applicant.  She said that there was also a letter sent out to the few people in the isolated areas, including the homeowners association and including the one parcel not in the subject rezoning saying that they would be isolated and surrounded by a zoning district and could possibly be added into the application. 


Alternative 2.  Staff recommends that the Planning Board consider asking the applicant to amend their application to include the isolated parcels within the subject area.  The Planning Board would then send either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on the amended rezoning application to the Board of Commissioners.


Alternative 3.  Staff recommends that the Planning Board consider asking the applicant to defer rezoning application R-03-05.  Then the Planning Board could immediately initiate its own rezoning study based upon this application to consider a larger area around the subject area.


Lynn Matykiewicz, representing the Hidden Lake Estates Association (of which she is president) and the applicant on this submission spoke.  She feels that it is in the best interest of the area to move forward with the R-20 district as it has been a long standing effort that she picked up late last year.  She wanted to bring it forward to the Planning Board to get some resolution on it one way or the other.  She said she understands about the lake itself and the other small piece of property, which is actually owned by the Hidden Lakes Estates Association.  She stated that she was not sure why it was not included on the request but that the properties in white (shown on Staff’s map) were not included in the rezoning request because those property owners were not interested in signing a piece of paper indicating their support for it.  She would like to get this resolved and move forward with it.  She said that the large piece of property has been clear-cut in the last six months and understand that the owner wants to develop it.  She said there has not been any indication what that property will entail, but she would support including that piece of property into the R-20 request, but she could not arbitrarily include it in the application.  Ms. Armstrong asked whether their association is a North Carolina non-profit corporation, and if membership in it is mandatory and automatic for everyone that owns a lot in your subdivision?  Ms. Matykiewicz answered yes to both questions.  Ms. Armstrong asked how many members are in the association?  Ms. Matykiewicz said there are around 15-17 members.  There is one exclusion in this particular area, and it was due to some issues in the original development and there was litigation many years ago over this.  She added that there is one lot that is excluded from the membership of this association, and that lot is not included in the application.  Chairman Pearce asked whether there are restrictive covenants that affect the building size, etc.?  Ms. Matykiewicz said that there were.  Chairman Pearce stated that he has a problem approving the subject area as requested because of the holes, as they make no sense at all.  He said he was curious why Staff stopped where they did on their recommended rezoning of the 142.14 acres, and asked why they didn’t take it all the way over to the T-20 zoning district?  Ms. Radcliff stated that the reason was that these were the property owners who had indicated their support to be rezoned to R-20 and the only reason Staff added in the ones we did, is because they were going to be isolated.  She said that if the rezoning was going to go further than the request, Staff feels that the application needs to be pulled or denied and that there needs to be a zoning study of the entire area.  Chairman Pearce said he feels that the Board could set up a zoning study on the remainder of that area at a later time.  Ms. Armstrong asked whether Staff has received back anything on the correspondence that was sent to the property owners that were not included in the application?  Ms. Radcliff stated that there have been a few that called and asked questions about the rezoning and also there have been some that have come by the office inquiring about the rezoning.  She stated that there was one couple that indicated their desire not to be in the request.  Mr. Laughter asked if they expressed why they didn’t want to be part of the application?  Ms. Radcliff said that the only thing they had indicated was that it was already residential and they didn’t feel that there was a need to zone it residential as it has already developed into that and they did not want the increase in the setbacks that they would need to conform to if they decided to put anything else on the property.  Chairman Pearce asked whether there was anyone present who would like to speak on this request?


Sandy Hershburg.  She stated that her and her husband have lots 29, 30 and share lot 26 with Mr. and Mrs. Ray.  It currently shows that the Rays own Lot 26 entirely, but it is owned jointly.  She stated that they have been involved in considering rezoning as they indicated for years, but that they were surprised, since they are not part of the homeowners association, that the request was for R-20 zoning as they were initially interested in extending the R-40 zoning district.  She stated that they are not against the zoning as they would like the protection that it would provide.  She would like to see it moved up all the way to the T-20 district, but does not know what type of resistance would be encountered.  She said that some of the properties are in multi-generation families that started out with farming and have several generations of family members on the property and they simply do not want restrictions of any kind.  She said that before this was changed to Open Use Zoning, there was not enough support for new zoning.  She said that she would encourage the protective zoning and is very much in favor of the rezoning.

Chairman Pearce stated that he was in favor of Staff’s Alternative 1 in which the Planning Board makes either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on the rezoning application as submitted to the Board of Commissioners and then the Planning Board considers immediately initiating its own rezoning amendment to rezone the isolated parcels within the subject area to R-20 if appropriate.  In addition, he would want to also consider amending the application to include the land between R-40 and T-20 below the Kanuga Conference area.  He said the Board can do this in several ways.  Mr. Carpenter and Chairman Pearce asked the applicant whether she understood what has been said?  Ms. Matykiewicz said she would like it explained.  Chairman Pearce stated that the Board could make an unfavorable recommendation and then initiate a rezoning for the 142.14 acres or the Board could ask the applicant to defer the application for the time being and allow the Board to initiate their own study through the Board’s zoning subcommittee and look at the entire area and come forward with a recommendation for the entire area and not  just the general area of the application.  Mr. Cooper asked whether the applicant could amend her application to include all of this?  Mr. Carpenter stated that she could, but it would put her in the middle with the neighbors.  Chairman Pearce stated that there are a lot of things going on with the Board at present with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the U.S. 25 North Land Use Study.  Ms. Smith stated that if the Board sends a unfavorable recommendation, the application will proceed to the Board of Commissioners and it would schedule a hearing and go through that process.   After some discussion, Chairman Pearce feels that the Board should go with sending an unfavorable recommendation on the current application and then the Board should initiate their own recommendation for the 142.14 acres and further recommend that by June, 2004, the zoning subcommittee initiate a study of the adjacent land between the R-40 and the T-20 zoning below the Kanuga Conference area.  Ms. Smith added that if the Board of Commissioners denies the application, they cannot consider the same application within 12 months.  Mr. Carpenter feels what would work the best, is for the applicant to agree to table the application at the present time and for the Planning Board to study the whole area.  He said he is concerned with the holes in it and it is not sensible.  He said, in addition, they should look at those areas east of the subject property, between the subject parcel and T-20 zoning district.  He said if the application would be tabled, the time is not running.  He said generally the Board has a timetable or it goes automatically as a favorable recommendation.  He also mentioned that at any time the applicant could come back to the Board and un-table the request if they felt like the Planning Board was not moving fast enough on the request and ask the Planning Board to do something.  Chairman Pearce said that he feels that realistically, the Board can not look at the request until June, 2004.  Ms. Matykiewicz said that she can speak for the association and feels that it is reasonable to table the application at this point and allow the Planning Board to go forward with their own zoning study in hopes that it will be concluded within the calendar year of 2004 with some determination.  She feels that it would be in the interest of all of the parties concerned to see if all of those additional parcels can be included in the rezoning.  Chairman Pearce noted the application is tabled at this time, and directed Staff to have the Land Use Zoning Subcommittee appointed to study this request and give recommendations for the entire area. 


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-03-06 to Rezone Approximately 8.68 Acres Located at the Intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, from R-30 (Low Density Residential) to C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) – William G. Lapsley & Associates, P.A., Agent for Conomo Properties, LLC, Applicant.  Ms. Radcliff stated that this application was received from Conomo Properties, LLC on December 19, 2003.  She stated that the request is to rezone an 8.68-acre portion of one parcel from an R-30 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district to a C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district.  Ms. Radcliff noted on a map the portion of the proposed zoning request and stated that it is similar to what the Planning Board had reviewed back in March 2003.  Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Radcliff if she would review anything that differs from the previous application.  Ms. Radcliff stated that the previous zoning request, which was R-02-07, was submitted on December 20, 2002.  This first proposal was referred to as Alternative A and requested that the County rezone portions of the 180 acre parcel owned by Conomo Properties, LLC, from an R-30 zoning district to an 85-acre R-20 zoning district and a 12.39-acre C-2 zoning district.  An 82-acre portion of this application was to remain as R-30.  A portion of the property is in the floodplain and also in a protective Water Supply Watershed IV area.  She stated that it then went to a Subcommittee and the Subcommittee came back with an alternative to Alternative A, which was referred to as Alternative B.  Alternative B reduced the size of the proposed C-2 district from approximately 12.39 acres to approximately 7.69 acres, eliminated in its entirety the R-20 district proposed by Alternative A and maintained the remainder of the property as an R-30 zoning district.  She stated that the third alternative, Alternative C, which is exactly like the current rezoning application, was to eliminate a strip of R-30 zoning along the southern and eastern boundary of the proposed C-2 district, which comprises 8.6 acres.  She said that the difference between Alternative B and Alternative C was that it extended the boundary lines out to the centerlines of the road and cleaned it up for administrative purposes.  She said that Alternative C was actually Staff’s recommendation.  The Planning Board recommended against Alternatives A and B, but because Alternative C was merely a modification to Alternative B, the Planning Board’s motion also, in effect, recommended against Alternative C.  She stated that on April 25, 2003 the applicant officially withdrew the application prior to the public hearing that had been scheduled by the Board of Commissioners. 


She said that the present application request is most like Alternative C, in which the applicants are looking for 8.6 acres of C-2 at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road.  She said that looking at the zoning in the vicinity of the area, there is a small C-2 district directly across the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road on South Rugby Road.  She described on a map the general land use of the surrounding area of the subject parcel.  She stated that it is surrounded by an R-30 zoning district to the east, north and northwest and extending south of the subject parcel is a 1,200-acre R-40 zoning district.  She stated that the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan did call for commercial at this intersection, but did not specify what type of commercial it needed to be or how large a scale of commercial it needed to be.  She stated that the Plan is strictly a guideline and noted that the draft of the updated Plan should be available to the Board of Commissioners for their recommendation around the first part of June 2004.  She said she does not know whether the new Plan will call for a commercial designation at this intersection.  She noted that NC 191 is still on the books to be widened and there is a traffic light at this intersection and a turn lane coming from both directions. 


Ms. Radcliff stated that currently Staff recommends that the Board consider two important questions.  The first, “is commercial development appropriate at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road?”  The 1993 Plan, both the text and the map, support commercial development for this area, but it gives no scale or size of how big the commercial development should be.  Also, there is commercial development across the street, which is C-2 and it was done back in December 1995, which also set a precedent for this area.  Staff toiled with the question, if one thing is appropriate on one side, should it be appropriate for the other side and at what scale?  Ms. Radcliff stated that if the Board concludes that commercial development is appropriate at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, then the second question becomes, “Is the scale of commercial development permitted within a C-2 zoning district appropriate at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road or is there a more suitable zoning district?”  She stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan text recommends that “commercial development in rural communities should be downscaled” therefore Staff believes that C-2 may not be consistent with this recommendation.  Staff feels that a C-1 or C-2P district might be a more small-scaled zoning district for this neighborhood.  Ms. Smith clarified that Ms. Radcliff referred to the fact that there is commercial development across the intersection but Ms. Radcliff meant that it was a commercial zoning district.  Ms. Radcliff agreed.  Ms. Smith added that there is an approved conditional use permit for a convenience store and gas station for across the street, it just never has been developed. 


Mr. Arthur Cleveland, owner and applicant of the proposed rezoning request stated that one of the main reasons for coming back and why the application was pulled in April was because it was confusing.  He added it was confusing to him as to exactly what they were getting to and what was the final application was going to be.  He said he was involved in several large projects and he wanted the ability to study this application further and spend more time on the property and make sure that commercial would be the best use for this property.  He stated that he has spent time in the area of the property in relation to traffic as well as the potential growth of the NC 191 area.  He mentioned to the newer Board members some background history of the property.  He feels that the application narrows the focus to rezone the area on the corner because it is a commercial site.  He gave his opinions as to why he feels it should be commercial.  One, because of a commercial site across the street; two, because of the stop light intersection; three, because he feels there is a commercial pattern in that area that has already developed; and four, because the terrain favors commercial development rather than residential development.  He stated that what he wants to develop is a neighborhood shopping facility as he feels it is most appropriate for that tract of land.  He said it is the most logical use especially because of the traffic patterns that have developed.   Ms. Armstrong asked whether Mr. Cleveland had considered one of the other commercial zoning districts that Staff suggested?  Mr. Cleveland stated that he was not familiar with the C-2P District until Mr. Lapsley reviewed the districts with him.  He feels that the C-1 District is for smaller stores and feels it is not appropriate for this community and the C-2P District has limitations he is not familiar with.  He said he prefers C-2 but could make the case for C-2P.  Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Radcliff to give differences between the C-2 and C-1 and C-2P Districts.  Ms. Radcliff stated that the C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District provides for any retail business or service conducted within an enclosed building as well as hospitals, clinics, public utilities, and Group 1, 2 and 4 communication towers.  She said that shopping centers and light industries are allowed with a conditional use permit.  The setbacks are 75 feet from major roads and 60 feet from all others and there is a maximum building height of forty feet.  The minimum side and rear setbacks would be the same as the side and yard requirements to which the district is contiguous, which would be the Zoning Administrator’s call.  She said that in this case, she is not sure if it would be with the R-40 requirements or the R-30 requirements.   She said that the C-2P Preservation Neighborhood Commercial District also allows for any retail business or service conducted in an enclosed building, public utilities, and offices.  She said the main difference between the two districts, is that the C-2P District also allows for single-family homes and so it wouldn’t have to be commercial site only.  She stated that hospitals, clinics, libraries, churches, schools, restaurants and bed and breakfasts are allowed with a conditional use permit in the C-2P District but it takes away the light industry.  Ms. Smith added that in C-2P Districts, planned unit developments and residential apartment developments with a special use permit from the Board of Commissioners are allowed.  She referred to the project regarding the East Flat Rock Elementary School, Parkside Commons Apartments, as that is in the C-2P District.  Chairman Pearce stated that considering the closeness of the two districts, except that there are some additional residential uses and PUD availability allowed in C-2P District, why would Staff necessarily recommend C-2P over C-2 for this particular property?  Ms. Radcliff said the reason would be because the property could still be used for single-family residential development or it could be used for commercial and under the C-2 it could only be used for commercial and there still would be a probability of 8.6 acres  put in a shopping center or some type of light industry.  She added that junkyards could be allowed, but it would have to comply with Section 200-38.3 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, and C-2P would alleviate some of those types of haphazard developments.  Ms. Smith stated that another consideration regarding C-2P District depends on the water and sewer availability, as there is no density specified.  If water and sewer were made available, you could expect a higher density than what the R-30 District would allow, but without that possibility the density may not change.  Chairman Pearce asked all Board members if they had a major change in opinion or if they want to look at it in a different way than the last time of their request?  He asked the Board whether they would like to proceed on this request and go through the public input list.  Board members in general stated that their opinion has not changed since the last time and added that they have not heard anything different from the last time they voted.  Chairman Pearce asked Tommy Laughter and Vivian Armstrong, new members to the Board since the last request, whether they felt comfortable to proceed with a motion.  Ms. Armstrong stated that the supplemental memorandum that was given to all the Board members at the start of the meeting makes it clear that there remains considerable opposition to this request.  She stated that she had followed the previous request in the newspaper and given all of the information, she stated that she could not support this rezoning request.  Chairman Pearce feels that the Board should send forth the same recommendation as before.  Tommy Laughter asked the reason why the request was rejected the last time.  Chairman Pearce stated that he thought the motion should have gone forward the last time because he believed the Comprehensive Land Use study and recommendations still favored commercial, so the unfavorable recommendation did not come from him.  Mr. Allison stated previously he mentioned that he was for business, but he said his reason for denying the request was that he felt that the commercial district should have been there before the residential development and that the homeowners now should have a say on the request.  Mr. Laughter asked how did that other commercial site get zoned across the street?  Ms. Smith stated that originally on that site Staff had recommended C-1 for that area, but it went with C-2 and also the fact that the Land Use Plan called for commercial.  Mr. Carpenter feels that since Chairman Pearce voted for the motion the last time, it would be inappropriate for him to make the motion against it this time.  Mr. Carpenter made a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on rezoning request R-03-06.  Leon Allison seconded the motion.  Walter Carpenter, Leon Allison, Tommy Laughter, Vivian Armstrong, Mike Cooper and Paul Patterson voted in favor of the motion.  Chairman Pearce opposed the motion.  The motion carried.


Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-03-04 to Rezone Approximately 7.76 Acres Located off Old Spartanburg Road, from R-15 (Medium-Density Residential) to C-4 (Highway Commercial) – Leon Allison, Applicant.  Mr. Allison asked for recusal as he is the applicant for this proposal and it would be a conflict of interest.  The Board approved the recusal.  Ms. Radcliff stated that the total acreage of this parcel 12.61, but the request is for approximately 7.76 acres to be rezoned.  The request is for the subject parcel to be rezoned from R-15 (Medium-Density Residential) to C-4 (Highway Commercial).  The property is located off of Old Spartanburg Road just north of Spartanburg Highway and Upward Road.  The subject parcel is currently zoned R-15  and the front portion of the property, which is approximately a 300-foot wide strip along Old Spartanburg Road that contains approximately 4.62 acres, is zoned C-4, which was applied on September, 2000 as part of a rezoning application submitted by Mr. Allison.  The City of Hendersonville ETJ area adjacent to the subject property is zoned with a Hendersonville City R-15 district.  She stated that to the southeast of the subject property, across Old Spartanburg Road, is a small parcel on which the City of Hendersonville approved a C-3 zoning district for an antique shop.  South of the subject parcel is a County C-4 zoning district.  North of the subject parcel is a County R-15 zoning district and to the east of the subject parcel, with the exception of a 2.65 acre tract zoned R-15 (County), is a (County) R-20 zoning district.  Ms. Radcliff stated that in 1998, the previous owner of the subject parcel, Michael Owenby, requested that the County rezone the approximately 12-acre parcel from R-15 to a T-15 zoning district.  She said that was denied for several reasons, including concerns about the density at which a manufactured home park would be allowed to develop with a Conditional Use Permit under T-15, and the location of the floodplain.  The Planning Board sent an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, and on May 4, 1998, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners voted to deny Mr. Owenby’s rezoning application.  Ms. Radcliff said that in 2000, Mr. Allison submitted a rezoning application requesting that the County rezone his entire parcel on Old Spartanburg Road (approximately 12 acres) from an R-15 zoning district to a C-4 zoning district.  She said it went to a subcommittee of the Planning Board which sent an unfavorable recommendation to the full Planning Board.  Mr. Allison revised his application to request that the County rezone only the front portion along Old Spartanburg Road, which is a 300-foot wide strip of property, approximately 4.62 acres, from R-15 to C-4 and leave the remaining portion of the property as R-15.  She said that on September 5, 2000, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners approved the rezoning application (R-01-00) as amended.  Chairman Pearce asked what the gray shaded area (on the map) means?  Ms. Smith said that the dark gray area is the City of Hendersonville’s corporate limits as opposed to the light gray area, which is the City’s ETJ.  Ms. Smith stated that on September 2, 2000, the City of Hendersonville relinquished its extraterritorial jurisdiction on a small portion of the subject parcel.  Ms. Radcliff said that on September 26, 2000, the Planning Board, with Mr. Allison’s consent, requested that the portion of the property that was removed from the City of Hendersonville ETJ and became an unzoned area, be zoned R-15 by the County.  On November 6, 2000, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners approved their request. 


Ms. Radcliff said that the R-15 district only allows residential development.  The standard lot sizes are a minimum of 15,000 square feet and it does not allow any commercial activity by right.  The C-4 Highway Commercial District will allow most small and large scale commercial uses by right, including shopping centers, and recreational vehicle parks.  Light industries, motor sports facilities and adult establishments are permitted with a Special Use Permit.  She stated that it is important to note that the proximity and size of this parcel to the surrounding R-15 and R-20 Districts would make it virtually impossible for a motor sports facility to go on the subject parcel, and the adult establishment would need to meet a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from any other adult business or residential dwelling unit.  Therefore, as long as the nearest dwelling was not within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel, then it would be impossible for an adult establishment to go there.  She stated that the back of the subject parcel is currently vacant and the front portion is currently utilized as a business.  The subject parcel is surrounded by residential uses, although there is some commercial development all along US 176.  She added that there is an automobile salvage discount business that is located on Old Spartanburg Road that is across from this parcel and is zoned C-4.  The subject parcel also has access to both water and sewer.  Ms. Radcliff stated that Staff’s recommendation on this rezoning is that the application as it is submitted be denied, which is based upon the following:

(1)    The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the both the future Land Use Map and the text of the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and Phase 1 of the East Flat Rock Zoning Study, as it calls for residential development in the area around the subject parcel and through that whole area and delineates commercial development to be more along US 176 and did not intend for it to go back any further. 

(2)    The district text states that a C-4 District is generally located on major highways, and Old Spartanburg Road is not considered a major highway and the property would not have direct access to US 176, so it would need to access it through various routes.

(3)    The majority of the subject parcel is located within the 100-year floodplain.  She stated that reviewing commercial development and residential development, Staff found that certain commercial uses may not be as much of a risk as residential development, but the potential impact of a large-scaled commercial use or light industry on the site is a concern. 

(4)    The surrounding residential community may already be located in close proximity to existing commercial developments, but granting the rezoning request would further encroach the commercial development into a residential district.

(5)    The 2000 application that allowed C-4 on the front portion of the subject parcel set a precedent for future rezonings on the north side of Old Spartanburg Road, but the County must decide how far the C-4 zoning district should be allowed to extend and where to set the boundaries.


Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Allison to speak regarding his proposed rezoning application.  Mr. Allison stated that thinks that it is better to develop this parcel as commercial rather than residential.  He stated that he bought this as a farm about four years ago and all of his neighbors came to him and asked him not to develop it as high density residential, but they said they would support a commercial site on it.  He said that he and all of his neighbors get along well and that they would have come to the meeting tonight on his behalf, but due to their age, time and weather conditions, they were not be able to make it.  He mentioned that since he has had the property, he has improved the site and some of the problems that occurred on his property.  He feels that he has been an asset to the adjacent properties and feels that the community supports him 100%.  Mr. Allison showed some photos of the proposed rezoning site and explained the buffering he has between his property and the adjacent properties.   He said that William Beck, with NCDENR, Land Quality Section, was out inspecting work that had been done on his property and said that everything was in compliance.  Mr. Allison added that Mr. Beck agreed that down the road for age or whatever might happen, the mobile homes near the creek adjacent to the subject parcel, which are built right on the edge of the creek, would not be allowed on that site again.   He stated that if he develops any more of his property without subdividing, he would need to go before the Board of Adjustment.  The Board of Adjustment would make him adhere to all of the landscaping and buffer requirements, and a property owner can have only one building on one piece of property or one lot, no matter how big or small the lot is.  He stated that at present, he would like this subject parcel for an addition to his business.  He said that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1993 was to promote quality commercial and industrial businesses.  He said that the reason why he is not on the main highway on US 176, is that is where shopping centers are mainly located.  He said that a small business couldn’t afford to be on a main highway because the cost involved with land.  He said that where his property is located, the roads and visibility are good and the traffic flow has not increased since his business opened.  He said that if he were able to develop the property further, he would be able to add some jobs to the job market for the County.  He also mentioned that he would like to develop a composting business. 


Chairman Pearce said that this matter has already come before the Planning Board previously, and he had made an unfavorable recommendation for changing the subject parcel to C-4 at that time.  He said it was not because of what Mr. Allison had in mind for the property, but because the zoning stays with the property and breaking the line from Spartanburg Highway and the upper side of Old Spartanburg Road did not make sense.  Chairman Pearce said he feels the same way now.  He feels that there are numerous things that could come in under the C-4 zoning, so much of which could have repercussions.  He said we are not talking about what happens today, but what will happen in the future. 


Walter Carpenter said that he had voted against this request as well because it is not on a major highway, and it is in a 100-year floodplain.  He said he was not convinced that R-15 is the proper zoning there because it is in a flood zone, but he is not inclined to change it unless there is some change in conditions that leads him to believe that what was done before was done in error.  He stated that if it is a 300-foot deep piece of C-4, there are some significant limitations to what can be built there by the setbacks and the size of it.  That would be removed if the whole piece was rezoned.  He does feel that Mr. Allison has improved the land, even though he was against him having C-4.  He said that he would have to vote against his request.


Mike Cooper said that with what Mr. Allison has done to the property, it is much improved.  He said he does not see any practical use for the balance of his property other than farming, but it is not designated as farmland.  He feels that it is not feasible for residential and also feels that it is unreasonable for him not to be able to use the balance of his property.  He said, “Where do you draw the line on commercial?”  He feels that as time goes on, the County will see more commercial sites.  He said he has mixed emotions about this request.


Paul Patterson stated that commercial developments have more impervious surface than anything else.  He feels that regarding Mr. Allison property, even though it is a flat area, with time when the County has a 100-year flood there will be problems with flooding.  He said that he is not sure residential should be there, but he is not sure whether commercial should be there either.  He feels the Board needs to look at the zoning for future use not just for the present use.


Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board sends an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on rezoning application R-03-04.  Chairman Pearce seconded the motion.  The reason for the unfavorable recommendation was that the subject parcel is not on a major highway, it is within the 100-year floodplain, and there is no change in the conditions of the property that would warrant a rezoning.  Also, C-4 zoning allows such a wide range of uses, and increasing the size of the C-4 district could broaden what all could be included.  All members voted in favor except for Mike Cooper, who opposed the motion.  The motion carried.


Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates.  The Board discussed the development of a Watershed Issues Subcommittee to discuss issues dealing with the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance with representatives of the Town of Mills River.  Chairman Pearce appointed Walter Carpenter, Paul Patterson and himself to be the Planning Board representatives of the subcommittee.  Ms. Smith stated that Carolyn Johnson and Ellen Carland would be the Mills River representatives.  Ms. Smith stated that she would get together with the Mills River representatives to find out a date and time that will be agreeable to all and send out a notice accordingly.  Ms. Smith mentioned forming a subcommittee to study the rezoning request for Hidden Lakes.  Chairman Pearce said if Staff is not in the position to handle starting that study on Hidden Lakes at present, he does not want to put an undue burden on Staff with everything else that is going on.  He suggested that if Staff wants to start working on the study and come forth with some recommendation maps and materials that would be appropriate.  Mr. Carpenter stated that looking at the other place between the two zoned areas, in terms of what are the present uses and sizes, is what needs to be started with the study.  He feels that a defined area is required and that Staff will probably need to go further out past the boundary of the application.  Ms. Smith suggested that Staff could pull together some basic information about the area and present it at the February Planning Board meeting and then have the Board schedule something at that time.  Board members agreed.


Adjournment.  There being no further business, Walter Carpenter made a motion to continue the meeting to Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Meeting Room.  Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.






Tedd Pearce, Chairman                                                   Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary