Source: http://www.hendersoncountync.org/planning/pb/pbmeetings/2003/11.18.03min.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 00:17:54
Document Index: 62243416

Matched Legal Cases: ['§170', '§192', '§170', '§170', '§192', '§192', '§192', '§192', '§170', '§170', '§170', '§170']

The Henderson County Planning Board met on November 18, 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, Chair, Walter Carpenter, Vice Chair, Leon Allison, Todd Thompson, Tommy Laughter, and Mike Cooper. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner, Karen Smith, Planning Director, and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board members Cindy Dabaibeh and Paul Patterson were absent.
Chairman Pearce stated that Kevin Keefe resigned from the Planning Board because he felt that the public would feel that there is a conflict of interest regarding his relationship working with Tedd Pearce and being on the Planning Board with him.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order and stated that Mr. Paul Patterson had indicated that there was one change to the minutes of the October 21, 2003 Planning Board meeting. Chairman Pearce referred to page 18 of the draft minutes, which referred to a statement Mr. Patterson made during Mr. Allison’s motion on the Homestead at Mills River. It stated: “Mr. Patterson felt that a requirement regarding an engineer’s or surveyor’s certification on the final plat as to road grades complying with Henderson County standards is needed to be added as an additional condition. Chairman Pearce stated that Mr. Patterson indicated that the sentence should read: Mr. Patterson felt that a requirement regarding an engineer’s or surveyor’s certification on the final plat as to roads complying with Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance road standards in all aspects is needed to be added as an additional condition.” After some discussion, Mr. Cook indicated that the letter sent to the owners of the Homestead at Mills River referenced similar language under the road standard condition. All members agreed on the change because of its similarity of what was sent in the letter to the owners of the Homestead. Tedd Pearce made a motion to approve the October 21, 2003 minutes with the change as discussed. Leon Allison seconded the motion. Ms. Smith said that Staff would check on the statement in the letter to the owner of The Homestead at Mills River to make sure it did indicate similar language. All members approved the minutes with the change indicated.
Adjustment of Agenda. Ms. Smith stated that she had received a request from Jeff Justus regarding a subdivision that was initially approved last year on which needs some guidance from the Board. Chairman Pearce stated that will be addressed after Item 12, under New Business. All Board members agreed on the addition to the agenda.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith informed the Board that at the Board of Commissioners meeting for tomorrow, November 19, 2003, she will be bringing before the Board a proposed amendment to the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance regarding the 100 foot buffer requirement for situations requiring Special Intensity Allocations. She stated that this came up during the Planning Board meeting regarding The Homestead at Mills River. She said that she had received a letter from the State saying that Henderson County needs to amend its Water Supply Watershed Ordinance and therefore that is the reason in bringing it to the Commissioners. She stated that if there is anything assigned to the Planning Board regarding this matter, the Commissioners would advise her.
Request for Extension of Development Plan for Morgan Business Center (File # 01-M21) – William Lapsley, Agent for MSMM Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Cook stated that he received a memorandum from William Lapsley’s office requesting that the Planning Board withdraw this extension and let the approval from the Planning Board expire. Mr. Lapsley and the owner understand that the project will have to be resubmitted at a future date. Chairman Pearce made a motion to accept the withdrawal for the request for extension of Development Plan approval for Morgan Business Center. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. (Walter Carpenter arrived to the meeting at this time).
Piney Oak Hills (File # 96-M20) – Resubmittal of Master and Development Plan Review (46 Lots on 18.3 Acres) for Property Located off Stepp Road – Jon Laughter, Agent for A & A Developers, Inc., Owner. Mr. Cook stated that this is a resubmittal of the Master and Development Plan for Piney Oak Hills. He said that the Planning Board in 1993 approved the Stepp Road Subdivision, which was a 44.70-acre tract for 45 lots. In October 1995, the Planning Board granted a six-month Development Plan extension for the project. The extension expired without further action by the Applicant. In January 1997, the Planning Board approved under a new name, Piney Oak Hill subdivision, previously Stepp Road Subdivision under the former Land Development Ordinance. He stated that the Applicant has not completed the development of the property in the most recent designated amount of time for the Development Plan and therefore, the Applicant has re-submitted the combined Master and Development Plan for Planning Board review. He stated that the applicant has proposed 45 single-family lots on 37.5 acres and that the County tax map shows 26 lots already exist in the subdivision. The applicant is specifically proposing that 19 lots of the original proposed 45 lots on 17.1 acres be approved for development. The 19 lots involve lots 3 through 6, lots 11 through 22, and lots 34 through 36. The property is located in an Open Use zoning district and it is not in a Water Supply Watershed and private roads, individual wells and septic tanks will serve the property.
Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and stated that there were no comments under the Master Plan as all requirements had been satisfied. Mr. Cook reviewed the conditions under the Development Plan as follows:
Perennial Stream and Setbacks – The applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback from perennial streams required by §170-37A of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such setback must be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).
Private Roads – Because private roads are shown, the final plat should include a note stating: The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the state road system (HCSO Appendix 7).
Roads Grade – The applicant proposed gravel private collector residential roads and gravel private local residential roads to serve the property. The road grades are not to exceed 12% and 15% respectively. On the Final Plat, conformance with the road grade standards of the Subdivision Ordinance will need to be certified (HCSO170-21 Table 1, 170-21E).
Mr. Cook stated that regarding other comments, the Applicant has a water supply point at the subdivision, but currently they are not on public water. He stated that he has spoke with Mr. Jon Laughter who indicated that just recently the water supply point was brought to their location and there is not enough pressure to serve the lots in this development at this time. Mr. Cook stated that they are negotiating with an adjacent parcel to put a pump station there so they can have public water serving them. Chairman Pearce asked whether this differs from the last submittal, if so, in what way? Mr. Cook stated that as for the designs, there is no change and the roads presently there will have to be upgraded according to the latest County road standards. Ms. Smith added that the County did not have the type of road standards in 1997 that we have implemented currently, so Staff needed to make sure that the road in front of the lots would meet current standards and it appears that it meets these standards based on the plan that they have presented. Walter Carpenter asked if the Stepp Road Subdivision was a different subdivision from the one we are looking at, or is it the same? Mr. Cook stated that when it was originally presented in 1993 it was all one subdivision. Mr. Cook stated that it was submitted and approved and there were some lots sold with the road being there and then the extension expired. Mr. Cook said that in 1997 it came back to the Planning Board and more lots were sold and the road standards were met with the existing roads there at that time with the rules for roads at the time and because it expired again, it has been resubmitted for the rest of the lots. Mr. Cook indicated that the lots the Board is dealing with directly are the 19 lots, which specifically have not been recorded and that the owner is looking for approval. Mr. Cook mentioned that the roads might need upgrading to meet the present road standards and he mentioned that they have illustrated that on the plan with new cross-sections. The Applicant’s agent, Mr. Laughter, advised staff that the waterline was not originally located there. It recently was extended to the property, but there is not enough water pressure to serve the property. The Applicant is negotiating to build a water pump station at the adjacent Habitat for Humanity property to serve the Piney Oak Hills subdivision.
Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Piney Oak Hills subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and further moved that the combined Master and Development Plan be approved subject to the following Conditions: the applicant satisfies comment 1 before construction begins and comments 2-4 on the Final Plat. Tommy Laughter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development - Proposed Amendments to Common Area Related to
Clubhouse Renovations - Carriage Park Homeowners’ Association and Carriage Park Associates,
LLC, Applicants. Chairman Pearce stated that Staff received a letter from Gerald Liedl requesting that this item be withdrawn from the agenda, which means that this application will not be carried forth, but that if they want to bring this forth at a future meeting, they will have to start all over again. Mike Cooper made a motion to formally accept the withdrawal of the item, Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, proposed amendments to common area related to clubhouse renovations, from the agenda. Walter Carpenter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives - Planning Staff. Ms. Smith briefly updated the Board on the recent community meetings and mentioned that on December 2, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. there will be a Latino community meeting held at El Centro on North Main Street.
Horseshoe Bend Farm (File # 03-M16) – Master Plan Review for Property Located off Brevard
Road (US Highway 64W) – (16 Proposed Mini Farm Lots, 50 Single-Family Lots, and 33 Cottage
Lots on 190.58 Acres) - Luther E. Smith, Agent for Patton Seed Company, Owner. Mr. Cook stated that the property is a 376.58 acre tract located off Brevard Road (Highway 64). The development is for 16 proposed mini farm lots, 50 single-family lots, and 33 cottage lots totaling 99 lots on 190.58 acres. The remaining 186 acres of land will be designated as common area. The development is located in an Open Use zoning district, and is in a WS-IV Water Supply Watershed Protection district. He stated that a notable portion of he property seems to be in a 100-year flood plain and in the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan this land was designated as “Rural Conservation”. City of Hendersonville water, a community sewer system and private roads will serve the property. Mr. Cook stated that the Applicant is only requesting review of the Master Plan of the project at this time.
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the Master Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and offers the following comments:
1. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirement– Single Family Residential Uses: In a WS-IV area, per Section 192-12F(2)(a) of the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Ordinance, “Single-family residential development shall not exceed more than 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet of lot size, as defined on a project basis, unless such development qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus in which case development shall not exceed three dwellings units per acre of lot size. No residential lot shall be less than 20,000 square feet, excluding road right-of-way, except within an approved cluster development, unless such lot qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus in which case the lot shall not be less than 1/3 acre (14,520 square feet).” Mr. Cook stated that some of the lot sizes proposed in the “cottage” section do not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the 20,000 square feet (or 14,520 square feet if the project qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus). Because the Applicant is proposing 186 acres of open space for the project, it appears the project could qualify as a “cluster development” under Section 192-14 of the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance. He stated that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance including those for cluster development if the Applicant intends to proceed with the project as shown on the Master Plan.
2. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirements- Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the perennial stream setback in the Subdivision Ordinance, §192-15 of the Watershed Ordinance requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial streams. He stated that this is specifically stated this way because under the Subdivision Ordinance you can have a 30-foot setback but it does not have to be the original vegetative area but in the Watershed Ordinance it needs to be the original vegetative area. Ms. Smith clarified that it does not have to be the original vegetation, vegetation may be removed and other vegetation may be planted. Mr. Cook further stated that regarding the built-upon surface area, in the open space a special intensity allocation may need to be applied for, and if so, under the State ordinance, there would need to be a 100-foot vegetative buffer from perennial streams for the common area/special use lots. He stated that Section 192-22 deals with watershed area with regard to anything that would adversely affect the watershed area and the Planning Board would have the option not to approve based on that reason alone. Chairman Pearce added that it gives the County Zoning and Watershed Administrator certain abilities for certain things.
3. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirements- Special Intensity Allocation (SIA): Ten percent of the total acreage within the balance of a WS-IV Watershed outside of the critical area may be approved for special intensity allocation. Acreage approved as a special intensity allocation maybe developed with up to 70% built-upon area. If an SIA is granted, there is a 100-foot vegetated buffer requirement from perennial streams in nonresidential and common areas.
4. Development Plan- Before any construction within the project may begin the applicant must submit and obtain approval the Development Plan under the procedures and standards of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Cook also stated that he suggests that before the applicant submits the Development Plan for review and submittal to the Planning Board that an appointment be arranged with Staff to review the plan before it is officially submitted. Mr. Cook said that the Master Plan was sent to Mr. William Eaker with Land of Sky Regional Council for review. Ms. Smith noted that Mr. Eaker is involved in a project that is looking at voluntary buffers along the French Broad River.
Mr. Cook added that Henderson County is considering the development of a flood damage prevention ordinance that could impact future development of the subject property. Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Board does not see many Master Plans with Development plans.
Mr. Luther Smith, agent for Patton Seed Company, owner of Horseshoe Bend Farm, stated that he is asking the Planning Board to give approval for the Master Plan, because the Board will never see a Development Plan on this project. Mr. Smith briefed the Board on the location of the property. He stated that coming before the Planning Board tonight is one step in the process that the applicant is going through. He said in order to place the entire property under conservation easements so that it will never be developed, the owner is giving up development rights of 89 of the 99 homesites in exchange for placing a conservation easement on the property. There will actually be two easements, one is working with the program that Mr. Bill Eaker has with Land-of-Sky through the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to put a buffer all along the river that will be anywhere from about 100 feet to 200 feet back from the stream bank. The remainder of the property will be put under a farmland conservation easement with the exception of the ten building sites. He said that if at some point in time they decide to use the building sites, then they would have to come back into this Board and go through the planning process to actually get a development Plan on record for those ten sites He said at the moment from the standpoint of the easement, those sites are simply located by a stake in the ground or a point on the ground that will say some point in the future if you decide to develop this, that point must be in the center of the lot and basically they would develop the lots off of that and bring the plans back for review to the Board. Mr. Smith reiterated that this is just one step in the process that has been going on for four months and they hope to have the whole process finished by the end of the year so that the easements can be put into place and the farm can be protected as farmland. Chairman Pearce stated that they need the Board to approve this Plan to begin the process. Mr. Allison asked whether there might be a possibility that the ten lots might be used in the future? Mr. Smith stated that he does not know that the current owner would use those lots, but part of the reasoning for that is if they sell the whole piece of property, those lots go with the property. He stated that the other reason is that there are other existing homes on the property now and two of those existing homes will be two of those ten lots. Mr. Allison stated that on the common area, if the ten lots were sold later on, if that common area is tied to that, would they have access to that? Mr. Smith stated that the conservation easement on the property will include the ten lots, so each of the lots will be part of the easement, they will not be outside of the easement. Mr. Allison said the common area if it went along with those ten lots, they could use any part of that farm that they wanted to. Mr. Allison asked, “Do you think it would be better than putting it in common area to put it in agriculture?” Mr. Smith said it will go under an agriculture easement and the Development Plan with the ten lots would be shown as common area. Chairman Pearce noted that even though Mr. Smith has stated that they are not planning on bringing a Development Plan and that he is making it a conservation easement, when the Planning Board approves it on the merits that have been presented to us, it could come forward as a full Master Plan. After some discussion on common area usage, Mr. Carpenter clarified that the Master Plan does not approve common area, the individual Development Plan would be when they approve that. He stated there is no dedication of common area now.
Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan submitted for the for the Horseshoe Bend Farm 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 that the
applicant address comments 1 and 2 at the time of submittal of a Development Plan for the project. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Sky Top Farm (File # 03-M20) – Master Plan Review for Property Located Off North Rugby Road
(60 Lots on 110.62 Acres),) – Terry Weaver, Agent for FRE, LLC, Owner. Mr. Cook stated that Sky Top Farm is a submittal for a major subdivision for a 110.62-acre tract located off North Rugby Road. The proposed development is for 60 single-family lots in three phases. In Phase I there are 21 lots proposed, in Phase II there are 19 lots proposed and in Phase III there 20 lots proposed. He stated that Phase I would encompass 41 acres of which 11.8 acres will be designated common area. The development is located in an R-30 zoning district, a WS-IV Water Supply Watershed Protection district, and a portion of the property is in a 100-year floodplain. City of Hendersonville water, individual sewer and private roads will serve the proposed development. The 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the subject property as “residential” although the area in the floodplain may be designated as “agriculture.” The Applicant is only requesting review of the Master Plan of the project at this time.
1. Development Plan- Before any construction within the project may begin the applicant must submit and obtain approval the Development Plan under the procedures and standards of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance (170-16[C]).
2. Common Area – The applicant has designated an 11.8 -acre common area in the
project. There is an existing house, 3 sheds, barn, and storage bin on the property. The plan notes that the common area may include a clubhouse. Future structures in the common area must meet the applicable zoning and/or watershed requirements. Such special use lots must be clearly identified for their designated use on the Final Plat (§170-31B). Non-residential development is subject to built-upon area requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance.
3. Compliance with other provisions- The proposed subdivision must comply with other applicable County Ordinances including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance (HCSO §170-7).
4. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirement – Single Family Residential Uses: This is in a WS-IV area, and per Section 192-12F(2)(a) of the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Ordinance, “Single-family residential development all not exceed more than 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet of lot size, as defined on a project basis, unless such development qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus in which case development shall not exceed three dwellings units per acre of lot size. No residential lot shall be less than 20,000 square feet, excluding road right-of-way, except within an approved cluster development, unless such lot qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus in which case the lot shall not be less than 1/3 acre (14,520 square feet). Mr. Cook noted that since this is zoned R-30, cluster developments are not allowed by right and therefore the applicant would need to submit for a special use permit, if applicable, to do a cluster development.
5. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirements- Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the perennial stream setback in the Subdivision Ordinance, §192-15 of the Watershed Ordinance requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial streams. Desirable artificial stream bank or shoreline stabilization is permitted. §192-15 also limits development in the buffer to “…water dependent structures, other structures such as flag poles, signs and security lights which result in only the minimal increases in impervious area and public projects such as road crossings and greenways where no practical alternative exists.” Projects have to minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from surface waters and maximize the use of stormwater best management practices. There are other applicable sections in the Watershed Ordinance however §192-17A provides a general statement worth noting:
No building or land shall hereafter be used and no development shall take place except in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the watershed area in which it is located. All development must minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater away from surface water and incorporate best management practices to minimize water quality impacts.
In addition §192-22 states that: No activity, situation, structure or land use shall be allowed within the watershed which poses a threat to water quality and the public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions may arise from inadequate on-site sewage systems which utilize ground absorption; inadequate sedimentation and erosion control measures; the improper storage or disposal of junk, trash or other refuse within a buffer area; the improper management of stormwater runoff; or any other situation found to pose a threat to water quality.
Mr. Cook stated that regarding the proposed clubhouse in the common area complying with the
R-30 zoning district, he had spoken with Mr. Burton, Zoning Administrator, and he had come to a
conclusion that it meets our zoning requirements and that the applicant does not need to worry
Staff suggests that before the Applicant submits the Development Plan for review to the Planning Board that an appointment is arranged with Staff to review the plan before it is officially submitted. Mr. Cook also noted that this proposed subdivision is in a 100-year floodplain and with the County considering a Floodplain Ordinance, it could affect the subdivision. Chairman Pearce asked when we discuss a clubhouse that is using an existing structure, does the Board need to include that as a condition that it may not necessarily comply with building codes because of State regulations that would apply with the change in use of the building. He suggested that some type of language should be added for existing buildings when they intend to be used for public use or some language that the buildings may or may not comply with the building codes. Ms. Smith interjected and stated that that the Planning Board or Department does not have any way to enforce those building codes to make them comply before they record a plat, so there could be a general statement added. Chairman Pearce asked whether the Board would be causing any problems for anyone without addressing that issue? Ms. Smith stated that it does not hurt to mention this but she is not sure whether it is a condition relating to the subdivision plan. Chairman Pearce feels that the Board is seeing these situations regularly. Ms. Smith stated that this one of the first clubhouses in a zoned area, other than the Open Use District. Mr. Allison asked if a clubhouse was being built, what type of permit would be pulled, a commercial or residential permit? Chairman Pearce said that technically it would be a commercial permit. Chairman Pearce feels that the applicant should know up front that they might have a situation that needs to be addressed. Mr. Allison asked whether the Board would be approving that as a commercial use? Chairman Pearce stated that the Board would not be approving it as a commercial use, but that these are substantial modifications for a commercial building and they would need to have a contractor with a commercial license to do the work. He stated that a general contractor’s license is acceptable. After some further discussion, Ms. Smith stated that if there is some type of language that the Board wants to add with regard to this matter that would be acceptable. Chairman Pearce suggested that under other comments, the following could be added: “The existing buildings in the common area may need to be reviewed by the Henderson County Inspection Department for their proposed use.” Chairman Pearce added that this language might be looked at for other future developments.
Mr. Terry Weaver, agent for FRE, LLC, owner stated that they have already had the Henderson County Inspection Department out at this site as well as contractors so that they have been put on notice that the owners are going to utilize this existing facility and that there will be requirements that will need to be adhered to. He noted that he wanted the Board to know that they were already looking into this matter. Mr. Carpenter asked whether there will be any of the lots in the subdivision of 20,000 square feet or less? Mr. Weaver stated that most of them are an acre or more. Mr. Thompson wanted to know if the future pond is going where the pond is at now? Mr. Weaver stated that what is shown is the existing pond and that they have already been discussing this with the Corps of Engineers and that it is a Corps regulated pond. He said that it can only get 75% bigger than what it already is as it can not be doubled. He mentioned that they may or may not expand the pond and if they decide to, it will probably be only around the clubhouse area. Mike Cooper made motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan submitted for the Sky Top Farm subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant and further moved that the applicant address comments 3-5 at time of submittal of Development Plan and comment 2 by the Final Plat and that comment 1 needs to be satisfied by the Applicant before he can go forward with the project. In addition, that the subdivision is subject to the following added language: “The existing buildings in the common area may need to be reviewed by the Henderson County Inspection Department for their proposed use.” Todd Thompson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Mountain Meadows (File # 03-M17) – Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan Review for Property Located off Oleta Road – (42 Single-Family Lots in Two Phases, 25 Lots in Phase I) - Jeff Donaldson, Agent for William H. May, Jr., Owner. Mr. Cook stated that Mountain Meadows is a proposed major subdivision on a 36.18-acre portion of a 92.94-acre tract located off Oleta Road. He stated that the applicant is proposing 42 single-family lots in two Phases. Phase I will encompass 22.88 acres and 25 single-family lots. The development is located in an Open Use zoning district and is not in a Water Supply Watershed Protection district. Individual wells, septic tanks and private roads will serve the proposed development. The applicant also has proposed a 0.5-acre common area near the entrance to the property.
Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and found that all technical requirements have been satisfied regarding the Master Plan. With regard to the Development Plan, the following are the comments:
1. Road Grade – The applicant is proposing private paved local residential roads to serve the development. However the portion of the road from the entrance to Scenic Ridge Drive must meet private collector road standards. The Development Plan shows road grades of 17.5% in the road section from the entrance of the proposed subdivision to the Scenic Ridge Road intersection. The County Subdivision Ordinance maximum grade allowed for paved private collector roads is 16%. The applicant, on a revised Development Plan, will need to propose roads as public, or the applicant will need to indicate road grades at or below 16% that will need to be certified on the Final Plat (HCSO 170-21 Table 1). Staff also suggests that the Applicant show two separate cross-sections for proposed private local residential roads and the private local collector roads.
2. Common Area - The applicant has designated a 0.5-acre common area at the entrance of Phase I. If applicable, future structures on the common area must meet the applicable zoning or other ordinance requirements. Such special use lots must be clearly identified for their designated use on the Final Plat (§170-31B).
3. Perennial Stream and Buffer Area – The applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback from perennial streams required by §170-37A of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such setback must be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).
4. Private Roads – Private roads are shown, the final plat should include a note stating: The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the state road system (Appendix 7).
5. Farmland Preservation – The applicant provided the Affidavit of Understanding of Farmland Preservation District. On the final plat, a statement should be noted saying the subdivision lies with ½ mile of the Blue Ridge Farmland Preservation District (HCSO 170-35 and Appendix 7).
6. 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).
Lot Designs - The applicant has a notable remaining portion of the property not involved in the proposed subdivision that has not been flagged as future development. If the Applicant desires to develop the remaining area of land, then areas for which no future phases are known or disclosed should be labeled as “future development” on the Master Plan and Development Plan for major subdivisions. When any “future development” areas of major subdivisions are to be subdivided, the development must comply with this chapter, including review by Planning Board under Section 170-16 (HCSO 170-31). Ms. Smith asked Mr. Cook to clarify whether he is requiring the applicants to put “future development” on the Master and Development Plans or if he is asking them to address any future development? Mr. Cook stated that he was giving it as a point of information since they have not placed that on the plan. He said that any future development indicated would require them to go through the application procedure. Mr. Carpenter stated that it would be a whole new subdivision if they subdivide anything west of this development. He added that it is obviously not going to get access from any of the existing roads because they do not go over in that direction. Mr. Carpenter inquired about the odd-shaped common area. Mr. Cook stated that it is where the sign is proposed. Mr. Steve Waggoner, agent for the owner stated that it is along the creek, so they wanted that area to be left natural as there is a waterfall there. Chairman Pearce asked regarding road grade, it stated that if they are private roads they need to have less than 16%, but if they are public roads, they don’t? Mr. Cook stated that this is correct. Mr. Waggoner stated that this was his conflict in trying to design the roads in this subdivision. Ms. Smith stated that this has come up before where the owner proposed public roads because they get a higher grade. Mike Cooper added that basically the County’s requirements are more stringent than the requirements of the State. Ms. Smith stated that is correct. She added that the State standards for residential collector roads are defined differently than the County’s and that the maximum grade is 12%. Mr. Waggoner stated that he has a problem with a small stretch of this road. Mr. Waggoner stated that on the Master Plan, this strip of the road would serve the whole subdivision so it will be approximately 25 lots or more, but a true collector for the State is less than 2500 feet and this is around 2100 feet. He stated that what Mr. Jeff Donaldson wants is to build the roads to State specifications and leave them graveled until the development gets finished and top it off with pavement and then turn it over to the State. Mr. Waggoner stated that the roads will stay private until that time and he will maintain them. Mr. Waggoner stated that if they call the roads public, then we will need to show detail of a paved street and that locks us in with paving the road before they can sell lots. He described a portion of the property and said that technically it could be approved as not being a Henderson County collector road at this point. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board needs to look at the project as a whole and the developer would need to upgrade the road and comply to County standards or get a variance and prove that you meet the conditions of the variance and add this with the conditions stated. Mr. Allison asked what the Board can do tonight regarding this subdivision, can the Board approve it? Chairman Pearce stated that this subdivision can be approved with conditions as stated, but it makes it more difficult to come back to the Board afterwards with a variance request. Mr. Allison asked if the developer got a variance on this and then it came back with the Phase II development to be approved what would happen? Mr. Carpenter stated that he feels the variance request would count for both phases. Mr. Allison said that as long as the first section of the road had the approval, then the second phase would have no problem. Ms. Smith stated that the issue that they need to demonstrate is if they can comply. Mr. Carpenter stated that they can meet it tonight because they can build roads to State specifications. Ms. Smith stated that the Commissioners make the findings of fact and the Planning Board usually recommends some on variances. Mr. Allison added that on a variance the applicant needs to show just cause because of some type of hardship. Ms. Smith stated that is correct. Mr. Cooper clarified that if the Board approves the subdivisions with the conditions, the developer would either need to meet the County’s 16% or build the roads to State standards. Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan submitted for Mountain Meadows subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and further moved that the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan be approved subject to the following Conditions: The Applicant satisfies comments 1 and 6 before construction begins, comments 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the Final Plat. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Rock Water Estates (File # 03-M18) – Master and Development Plan Review for Property Located
off Sugarloaf Road (66 Lots on 43.6 Acres) - Jon Laughter, Agent for J. Beth Williams and Dream
Dominion, Inc., Owners. Mr. Cook stated that the property is a 43.60-acre portion of a 58.23-
acre tract located off Sugarloaf Road. The combined Master and Development Plan proposed is for
66 single-family lots to be completed in one Phase. The lot sizes range from 0.50 acres to 0.91
acres. The development is located in an Open Use zoning district and it is not in a Water Supply
Watershed Protection area. City of Hendersonville water or wells and individual septic tanks, and
private roads will serve the property. Mr. Cook stated in reviewing the Master Plan, Staff found that
all technical requirements have been satisfied. He stated that under the Development Plan the
following conditions are required for approval:
1. Perennial Stream and Setbacks – The applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback from perennial streams required by §170-37A of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such setback must be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).
2. Private Roads – Because private roads are shown, the final plat should include a note stating: The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the state road system (Appendix 7).
3. Farmland Preservation – The applicant provided the Affidavit of Understanding of
Farmland Preservation District. On the Final Plat, a statement should be noted saying the subdivision lies with ½ mile of the Blue Ridge Farmland Preservation District (HCSO 170-35 and Appendix 7).
4. Common Area - The Applicant has designated a ten-foot walk path along the western
border of the proposed development. Such special use lots must be clearly identified for
their designated use on the Final Plat (§170-31B).
5. Water Supply – The Applicant checked that individual water systems will be used on
the application, however, on the Development Plan, the Applicant notes that public water will be used. If the Applicant is proposing individual wells, a reason must be provided for why the property will not be served by City water since a water supply line exists at the property. If no appropriate explanation is presented for why wells will be used, the applicant must submit a letter from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department that states there is sufficient capacity to make connection to the utility. The applicant must provide evidence that the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department have approved water supply plans. 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.
6. Road Grade – The applicant proposed paved private collector residential roads and
paved private local residential roads to serve the property. The road grades are not to
exceed 16% and 18% respectively. On the Final Plat, the roads grades will need to be
certified (170-21 Table 1). Staff also suggests that the Applicant show two separate
cross-sections for the proposed private local residential roads and the private local
7. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The applicant should submit notice from
8. Lot Designs - The applicant has a portion of the property not involved in the proposed subdivision that has not been flagged as future development. If the applicant desires to develop the remaining area of land, then areas for which no future phases are known or disclosed should be labeled as “future development” on the Master Plan and Development Plan for major subdivisions. When any “future development” areas of major subdivisions are to be subdivided, the development must comply with this chapter, including review by Planning Board under Section 170-16 (HCSO 170-31).
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Jon Laughter to explain the water supply situation. Mr. Laughter stated that there is a City water main, but there are some questions as to whether it will meet the requirements for fire flow. He said that there should be plenty of water there for residential use. He stated that the property across the street has been subdivided and it has water. Chairman Pearce inquired that if there is City water, there needs to be fire hydrants? Mr. Laughter stated yes. Chairman Pearce said that if they don’t have City water nor if they have the capacity for fire hydrants, they are forced into individual wells. Mr. Laughter said they are not forced into it, but you can’t force them to use the water either. Chairman Pearce asked if a booster pump was installed, would it meet the flow? Mr. Laughter said that it could if there is money available for that. Chairman Pearce asked if in the Ordinance, unusual expense be a reason? Chairman Pearce stated that it seems they have adequate flow to serve the lots, but there is not adequate protection to provide fire protection. Mr. Laughter stated at this time it is only a possibility and needs to be checked out by the City of Hendersonville Water Department. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board’s approval will be that they can use City of Hendersonville Water unless there is not adequate flow. Ms. Smith stated that the Subdivision Ordinance states that If the Subdivision Administrator determines that it would not be economically feasible for a subdivision to be connected to a public water or sewer system, another system may be used, subject to approval by the appropriate agencies. Mr. Carpenter said what it states is that the Board needs to approve the water supply condition so that the applicant can submit a request for exception to the Subdivision Administrator who may require that such requests be supported by a professional engineer’s review of the subdivision plans. Ms. Smith stated that whatever is approved tonight, they will have to build it but if the Board wants to allow either/or, that needs to be specified. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board does not have at this time enough information to allow wells. He added that the Board will need to approve it as public water until it can be demonstrated otherwise that it is infeasible and at that point in time the Subdivision Administrator can allow individual wells. After some further discussion, Chairman Pearce stated that the language regarding water supply should say that the Board is approving it as public water supply and take out all the rest of the language because the applicant at this point in time is proposing that it is public. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Rock Water Estates subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and further moved that the combined Master and Development Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: The Applicant satisfies comment 7 before construction begins and comments 1- 6 by the Final Plat. Regarding comment 5, dealing with Water Supply, he proposed removing language so it would read: This application will be approved with public water as a source of water supply until they demonstrate the exception delineated in Section 170-20 B(3) of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance. Tommy Laughter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Hyder & Justus Subdivision (File # 02-M13). Ms. Smith stated that a year ago, on November 19, 2002, the Planning Board approved a subdivision for Jeff Justus, which was referred as the “Hyder & Justus Subdivision off Upward Road, which is basically where the hotel is located. Ms. Smith stated that at that time they were proposing to do Lot 1 for the Waffle House and Lot 2 for the hotel, however, they had disclosed to the Planning Board that they were also thinking about making it up to six lots. There was a small plan submitted along with this single lot plan that showed the six lots. She stated that the Board considered at that time a commercial subdivision and in some cases in the past allowed commercial/industrial subdivision. She stated that at the time, you approved one lot as one phase so the Staff could do the development plans for additional lots as separate phases. She said that when it was approved a year ago, there was an issue at that time about a lot that had been cut out for the hotel. She said prior to this ever coming to the Planning Board, as shown on the top portion of the Master and Development Plan map, there is an easement that had been transferred by Hyder and Justus to Mountain Inn and Suites, LLC prior to the Waffle House Lot, but the transfer by deed basically resulted in a subdivision that had not gone through the process. She stated that Staff made the Board members aware of this when it came in and we wanted to try to address that and typically in obtaining compliance, Staff asked them to go back and go through the process. She said that that lot is being considered as part of this commercial subdivision. She said that when the Planning Board issued approval for this, it was for the combined Master and Development Plan knowing the limitation of six lots. She stated that the Board also put a condition on the hotel lot and under the motion for approval, it stated: that a lot containing a hotel was transferred by deed and that they did not receive approval under the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Board requires that the Development Plan for the hotel site be received by the Planning Department and approved within 60 days of November 19,2002 and that the Planning Board further directs that no future Master and Development Plans on this site can be approved either by the Planning Board or administratively until this matter is cleared. Ms. Smith stated that this tied their hands to do any other lots until they cleared anything regarding the hotel site lot and they had sixty days to do that and she added that she had contacted Mr. Justus at the time the sixty days was to expire and Mr. Justus had responded indicating that they were having problems meeting some standards and that Staff would have a plan within thirty days. She said that subsequent discussions with Mr. Justus had indicated that the road that was built to the hotel site long before this ever was conceived to be a subdivision, does not comply with the County’s standards. She said the right-of-way is a little smaller, which Staff could deal with, but the road construction shows a 22.5 foot wide paved area with concrete curb and gutter and a rolled down sidewalk on the other side. Ms. Smith stated that what Mr. Justus’ issue was, in order to submit a development plan for the hotel lot, he would have needed to show the Board a development plan which showed a road that would meet the County’s standards. She stated that he knows that this can not happen right now because if he shows it and he was to propose a development plan for the hotel lot and show the road, he would either have to build the road or bond it or look for a variance. She said that he has been aware that the Planning Board has been thinking about amending the standards for commercial/industrial subdivisions. She said the rules right now is that he would need to comply with the State road standards for collector roads, which is approximately 34 feet pavement gutter-to-gutter, if they do curb and gutter. She said that Mr. Justus mentioned that there is a lot that they are looking to sell that is on Upward Road, but Staff told him that there is nothing he can do until he deals with the hotel lot. She stated that there are a couple of issues to resolve. The sixty days have already gone by, but the motion did not say that that meant his approval was gone. She said one of the things she is asking the Board, what does Staff do about the sixty days that has gone by and that he hasn’t dealt with the hotel lot? She said the other issue is, she has discussed with Mr. Justus whether or not recombining the property, the hotel lot back with the balance of property, would eliminate violation of the illegal lot and would give Mr. Justus a clean slate in cutting out those other six lots. Mr. Cooper clarified that the Board at that time approved the Waffle House Lot because it adjoined a State road. Ms. Smith stated that Mr. Justus did not have to show a road for that lot, but if goes to do the next lot, he can not do anything as per the Board’s motion because he has not dealt with the hotel lot. Ms. Smith stated that Staff cannot approve anything else, so what does that mean. Mr. Allison stated that another motion is in order. Chairman Pearce stated that it means that he would like to see subdividers to try to comply with the County’s regulations before they transfer property. Mr. Justus stated that the transfer in essence was not a transfer because it was Jeff Justus and Bub Hyder individually to Mountain Inn and Suites, LLC, which is owned by Jeff Justus. Chairman Pearce stated that legal that is a transfer. Mr. Carpenter stated that it is a different legal entity. Chairman Pearce said that from a legal standpoint, it is a sale of property and you subdivided that property and you do not meet the subdivision requirements. Mr. Cooper asked, “Whatever happened to the Waffle House Lot?” Mr. Justus said that they are suppose to start in January and is sold and the lot got recorded. Ms. Smith stated that if he were to show a right-of-way where the easement is, he would need to build what he shows, whether or not he uses it because it will need to meet the Ordinance standards or obtain a variance or something else, but she said she can not get to that step until the Board deals with the hotel lot. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus whether he has thought about obtaining a variance? Mr. Justus stated that for 34 feet and he is at 22 feet. Ms. Smith stated that he is thinking if the Planning Board ends up proposing amendments to the Ordinance that would reduce the variance he might need. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus, “Since you are a developer, weren’t you planning on selling these lots?” Mr. Justus stated that he was. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus, “Why didn’t you look at the County’s Ordinance to see what the requirements were for the road?” Mr. Justus stated that he wasn’t sure what he looked at when he was building, but the road, even though it does not meet County standards, is curb and gutter, stormwater drainage on one side, sewer in the middle of a five-foot sidewalk that we did not need to build, it’s tree-lined and lighted from one end to the other with light poles. Mr. Cooper asked what is the width of Upward Road? Mr. Justus stated that Upward Road is 25 feet wide. Ms. Smith stated that she has had discussion with Mr. Justus regarding re-submitting Master Plans and Development Plans, but she said she is trying to determine after a year has gone by, where are we with this matter? Mr. Carpenter said, “what is the result of this approval, when it says that the Planning Board requires the Development Plan be received by the Planning Department within sixty days and further directs that no Master and Development Plan on this site can be approved by either the Planning Board or administratively until the matter is cleared.” He said that it seems that the sixty days was not a “drop-dead” date, but instead the result of not having that in is that nothing else can be approved. He also feels that the sixty days would not nullify this subdivision. Ms. Smith asked whether recombining the property would clear it for now? Mr. Carpenter added that if it was transferred back to one name, either the LLC owns it all or they would individually own it all it would clear the matter. Ms. Smith stated that it couldn’t clear it until he decides to show a right-of-way and once he shows a right-of-way, he is bond by the Ordinance. Mr. Justus stated that although it has been a year ago, he said that he has been in the Planning Department to discuss this and we saw that if it does not meet the standards, what can be done and Mr. Justus did not feel that a variance would work. Mr. Allison asked whether a new motion could be made on this matter? Ms. Smith stated that the Board does not have a Master and Development Plan before you and this item was for Staff’s direction. Chairman Pearce clarified by stating that the Board is not in a position to approve this, and was only asked for direction. Mr. Carpenter said that if this was recombined, then that issue would be gone and that everything meets the statute at that point and there would be no necessity for this and you couldn’t have a requirement that someone would bring a Development Plan on something that is only one lot. He said that at that point, there would be one lot on which there is a road and an Inn and that could stay the same or at some later time, the property could be subdivided but would be subject to right-of-way issues, depending on what the statute said at that time, or if a variance had been granted. Mr. Carpenter feels that you would not have a non-conforming lot at the point where it is all recombined. Once the lot conforms to all the rules, then there is no way to bring something else back in. Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith whether this matter has been addressed to the County Attorney? Ms. Smith stated that it was only discussed with the County Attorney in terms whether that lot was actually transferred or not. Chairman Pearce said that he feels if the Planning Board does give Staff direction on this, that it should be passed over to the County Attorney because once something has been transferred and subdivided, do we legally un-subdivide by changing the transfer? Ms. Smith stated that Staff has had a situation where there was a recombination fee but they also filed another document on record that makes people aware that that prior subdivision has been undone and something of that nature might want to be filed in this matter. Mr. Carpenter stated that there is nothing on record showing this. Ms. Smith stated that there is no plat on record; it would be another deed to recombine this. Mr. Carpenter stated that Staff would need a new plat or deed, which would state that it is a recombination and would get them out of non-conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance. He said they would then start from the beginning with what they do from there with any of property. Chairman Pearce asked, “At this point in time, we’ve undone anything the Board has done before and is no longer a subdivision and the Board does what he is saying, are we reversing any of the approval for six lots? Ms. Smith stated that it would not undo any actions made by the Board, but she is asking, will he be able to go up to six lots? She added a recombination does not change the Board’s decision; it just changes a part of it. Chairman Pearce said that at that point in time, we approved up to six lots in a subdivision because we had a subdivision and now we no longer have a subdivision. Ms. Smith said that you still do have a subdivision because you have one lot that has gone out and future development, as that is how it was shown. Mr. Carpenter stated that there wasn’t a submittal on a six-lot subdivision, it was just that apparently the Board looked at it and generally said it was ok. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus, where is the piece of property that they are wanting to sell at present? Mr. Justus showed the lot, which he described fronts McMurray and Upward Road. Chairman Pearce asked, “At this point in time, if the Board were to approve that and we gave permission to Staff to consider that, would the Board also need to state that the access to it would need to be off public road? Ms. Smith stated that if Mr. Justus recombines the property that he is going away also and again, if he shows a right-of-way, it will need to be to County’s standards. Mr. Carpenter stated that if there is a right-of-way into this one it will need to be this way, as this can be all one lot. Chairman Pearce stated that in review of what has been said and as an advisory for Staff’s direction on this matter, he stated that if one entity owns all the remaining land as titled as one parcel, that the requirement about the road change would be, for the time being, resolved regarding the road meeting County standards and that issue would no longer be applicable, but that there would be frontage issues on McMurray Road. He added that Staff can still proceed under the six lots and would not need to come back to the Planning Board unless it exceeds the six lots. Chairman Pearce said that any new roads need to meet private road standards and also that the sixty days mentioned in the previous motion does not nullify all other decisions. Leon Allison seconded the advisory that Chairman Pearce mentioned and all members were in favor.
Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. There were no meetings scheduled. Chairman Pearce suggested that the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee arrange a meeting and co-ordinate the date with Walter Carpenter, Chairman of the subcommittee.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Mike Cooper made a motion to adjourn
and Todd Thompson seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned