|
Officials make final changes to draft ordinances
By Justin Goble
Rather than voting on proposed steep-slope and subdivision ordinances July 19, county leaders made some revisions to the guidelines.
County Planning Director Linda Cable and Hendersonville attorney Michael Egan presented commissioners with a hillside district map, which includes all the unincorporated land in the county with a slope 30 percent or greater with the exception of the Cashiers Commercial District and the Qualla Boundary.
Unless land owners can prove otherwise, Egan said all land on the map would be subject to the steep-slope ordinance if not found to have vested rights.
“There’s not many large parcels of land that aren’t affected,” Egan said. “For those that are, they can come in and determine if their land will be exempted. If they come in and we determine the average slope of their land is less than 30 percent, then they don’t have to follow the requirements of this ordinance.”
Commissioner Tom Massie asked Egan how land owners would go about seeing if they were exempt from the guidelines. Egan said that, when they come to get a land-use permit, the planning department’s staff could pull up geographical information on the computer to determine if their land would fall under steep-slope regulations.
Egan said he had also added provisions allowing commissioners to amend the map if they chose to do so.
Another issue was brought up by Commissioner William Shelton, who said he wanted to change the best-management practice relating to house colors on steep slopes.
Under that guideline, commissioners are urging builders to paint houses to coordinate with “the surrounding landscape.” Those that don’t would require 80 percent screening, up from the 50 percent required in the rest of the ordinance.
“I’ve gotten a lot of comments about that,” Shelton said. “I think we can just strongly encourage people to use earth-tone colors and take out the extra screening requirements.”
The other commissioners agreed with Shelton’s comments and Egan said he would make the changes.
Shelton also commented on the fact that, under the proposed ordinance, golf courses could be considered as part of the open space required in major subdivisions.
As it stands, major subdivisions will be required to set aside 25 percent open space to be used for water recharge and recreational use.
While a golf course can be used for recreation, Shelton said they were commercial enterprises and he did not think they fit the definition of communal open space.
“It’s not a communal area for general use,” Shelton said. “They can also be a cause of point-source solution.”
Commissioners’ Chairman Brian McMahan disagreed with that opinion.
“Golf courses provide recreation for humans and habitats and open spaces for animals to graze,” McMahan said. “There is a benefit. Yes, they require fertilizer, pesticides and other things, but so does farming.”
“Farmlands are on the decline, but the amount of golf courses is increasing dramatically,” Shelton said in response.
McMahan asked if something like a community garden would be considered open space, to which Egan said he was unsure.
Even though he is a farmer, Shelton also said that he would advise against allowing someone to set up a farm on areas that should be set aside for conservation purposes.
Commissioner Mark Jones said that, while golf courses could be harmful, there were some that fit in well with the local environment.
“I work at a facility with a golf course (High Hampton Inn), and so does Chairman McMahan (Balsam Mountain Preserve),” Jones said. “I know we had a lady from Western Carolina University who did a thesis on bee habitats in golf courses using our course. She’s now doing a follow-up on bird habitats. I know our course is being used for communal recreation. We allow people to walk the course for exercise. But I can see both sides.”
Massie and Commissioner Joe Cowan both said they could see both sides to the argument and didn’t know if golf courses should be considered open space. Massie said that, since county leaders will continue to work on the ordinances after they are passed, it is something that can be revisited.
“That’s something we can leave in there,” Massie said. “If it becomes a problem, we can take a look at it a year from now.”
The other commissioners agreed with that idea.
Commissioners also took more public input on the two ordinances. Only 10 people took the chance to speak out on the guidelines.
Opinions on the ordinances were mixed. Cullowhee resident Bill Lyons was in favor of the measures, though he said he thought they should be strengthened.
“I think the definitions in the documents should be handled better,” Lyons said. “There’s some language used in an unusual manner and it needs to be defined better. It puts too much pressure on the planning director to make decisions.”
Lyons also said he didn’t think recreation facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, should be considered open space.
Planning Board Chairman Richard Wilson, who lives on Fisher Creek, also voiced his approval of the measures.
“We worked for the best interests of people in Jackson County,” Wilson said. “I feel strongly about my heritage and my land. I inherited most of my land. But I’m strongly concerned about the water and soil, along with the safety of our people. These ordinances are fairly complex, but they’re a good start. They’re not perfect, but in time they can be adjusted to fit the needs of a lot of people.”
Greens Creek resident Ernest Hall spoke out against the guidelines, saying they infringed upon his rights as a property owner.
“I’m a 23-year property owner,” Hall said. “So I’m led to believe I am exempt. But if I’m not, I’m guilty of a crime if I give my son a piece of land that hasn’t had plat approval.”
Tuckasegee resident Clark Lipkin said he thought the ordinances discriminated against developers.
“Are they meant to protect the environment or stop all new development in the county?,” Lipkin asked. “I’ve read the details of these ordinances and I believe it’s the latter. I also read that family subdivisions are exempt from certain aspects. Does that mean you don’t care about the safety of local families, or do you just want to give newcomers a hard time?”
Commissioners have set a final public hearing on the revised ordinances for Monday, Aug, 6, at 5:30 p.m. in the commissioner’s board room at the Justice Center. They will vote on the guidelines during their regular first-Monday meeting, which will start at 6 p.m.
In other business July 19, commissioners unanimously approved a development agreement with the Cedar Hill development of Cashiers.
The agreement will only apply to Cedar Hill’s final phase, because construction is almost complete at the 493-acre subdivision. However, if the proposed steep-slope and subdivision ordinances are passed by commissioners, that phase would not comply with regulations and could not be grandfathered in.
The main point of the agreement is to bring the last phase of development into compliance with the steep-slope ordinance as much as possible.
Tom Terrell, a land-development attorney representing Cedar Hill, said during a public hearing that preceded the meeting that the subdivision is permitted for a maximum of 165 homes, and 53 have already been completed. Since construction had already begun on others before commissioners started discussing the slope ordinance, it wouldn’t be possible to make those new homes comply with the guidelines.
However, he said officials from the development want to follow the new rules as much as possible.
No one spoke against the Cedar Hill agreement.
|
