Town of Maggie Valley

Regularly Scheduled Planning Board Meeting

June 2, 2004

MINUTES

 

Members Present:          Chairman Patricia Tilley            Members:            Jerry Zerbock

                                                                                                                                                                  Torry Pinter

                                                                                                                                                                  Richard Pierce

                                                                                                                                                                  Joann Lyons (3:30)

 

Staff Present:                     Building Inspector George Bage and Town Clerk Vickie Best

 

Others Present:                 Paul Runnerbaum, Bob Ledford, Bill Lees, Darrin Miller with The

 

Enterprise Mountaineer, Becky Johnson with the Smoky Mountain News, and Dan Massey

 

Meeting Called to Order

Chairman Tilley called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m. on Wednesday June 2, 2004 in the Town Hall Boardroom.

 

Rezoning Request- Robert Ledford

Mr. Ledford appeared before the Planning Board February 9, 2004 requesting his property located off Melody Land be rezoned from Residential 2 to Residential 3.

 

Excerpt:

Request to be Rezoned-Bob Ledford-Landmark Builders, Inc.

Mr. Bob Ledford with Landmark Builders, Inc. came before the board requesting his

property be rezoned to R-3 in order to build two houses on the property.  Property is  

presently zoned R-2 located on Melody Lane backing Raven Ridge.  Mr. Mehaffey informed Mr. Ledford that city sewer and water are accessible and that he did not see a problem with the rezoning.  Mr. Henson agreed that if he met the setbacks that he did not see a problem with the rezoning.  Surrounding property owners will need to be notified and it will be brought before the board for approval.

 

 

MS LYONS MADE A MOTION THAT LANDMARK BUILDERS, INC. BE REZONED TO R-3 PROVIDED SEWER AND WATER CAN BE ACCESSED AND ALL SETBACKS MET.  MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.  MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

The property is long and narrow. Mr. Ledford would like to construct a second home to sell.  Mr. Ledford contends that the adjacent development is zoned Residential 2 when the development/subdivision has zero lot lines.  Appalachian Village Subdivision, located within the same area is zoned Residential 3.

 

The Raven Ridge Development was built while located under Haywood County.  The previous planning board zoned the area in the mid 1990’s.

 

When it was discovered that sewer could be provided to the parcel, a public hearing was set at the May 4, 2004 Board of Aldermen Meeting.

 

Excerpt:

Set Public Hearing for Request to be Rezoned from R2 to R3

Robert Ledford, the owner of Landmark Builders Inc. has requested that his property located off Melody Lane be rezoned from Residential 2 to Residential 3.  Mr. Ledford has gotten approval from the planning board (February 9, 2004) based on the availability of sewer to the top of the property. The property is located adjacent to Raven Ridge Subdivision.

 

ALDERMAN TAYLOR MADE A MOTION TO SET JUNE 1, 2004 AS THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALDERMAN HIGEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Excerpt:

Rezoning Request- Bob Ledford

Mr. Ledford is requesting his parcel located on Melody Lane to be rezoned to Residential 3. Mr. Ledford desires to build two homes on the lot.

 

The Planning Board gave a positive recommendation contingent on the availability of sewer.

 

The property cannot be seen from US-19.

 

Ms. Lyons explained that the property is long and narrow and two homes would not have an impact on the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Bill Lees addressed council stating that Raven Ridge is zoned R2 and the units are on the property line.  Raven Ridge is a Planned Unit Development and a retirement community. Mr. Lees felt that it would be a fire hazard to allow more development in such a limited amount of space. Mr. Lees served on the Planning/ Zoning Board of Adjustments for several years and felt this rezoning would be considered spot zoning; which is illegal.  Mr. Lees asked that the Board of Aldermen look at the area before making a decision.

 

Mayor Pinter asked that Mr. Mehaffey take the board to view the area while they are out assessing roads.

 

After Council reviewed the area and zoning maps it was determined that rezoning the parcel would be considered spot zoning.

 

§ 160A-382.  Districts.
  For any or all these purposes, the city may divide its
territorial jurisdiction into districts of any number, shape,
and area that may be deemed best suited to carry out the
purposes of this Part; and within those districts it may
regulate and restrict the erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings,
structures, or land. Such districts may include, but shall not
be limited to, general use districts, in which a variety of uses
are permissible in accordance with general standards; overlay
districts, in which additional requirements are imposed on
certain properties within one or more underlying general or
special use districts; and special use districts or conditional
use districts, in which uses are permitted only upon the
issuance of a special use permit or a conditional use permit.
Property may be placed in a special use district or conditional
use district only in response to a petition by the owners of all
the property to be included. Except as authorized by the
foregoing, all regulations shall be uniform for each class or
kind of building throughout each district, but the regulations
in one district may differ from those in other districts. (1923,
c. 250, s. 2; C.S., s. 2776(s); 1931, c. 176, s. 1; 1933, c. 7;
1963, c. 1058, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 60;
1985, c. 607, s. 1.)

 

Mr. Ledford officially withdrew his request to be rezoned to Residential 3 and make a request to be considered a Planned Unit Development.

 

Mr. Ledford’s request for a PUD is the first time that this board has been asked to review a PUD.  The planning board is without a code enforcement officer; Mr. Ledford had no plans or drawings for his proposal; and the planning board members felt uncomfortable making a decision without researching the requirements and ask that documentation/plans be provided.

 

MR. PIERCE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD TIME TO REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS AND MR. LEDFORD TIME TO DEVELOP A PLAN.

MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairman Tilley, with the board’s consent, set June 8, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. for a special called meeting to review Mr. Ledford’s plans.

 

Excerpts from the Maggie Valley Zoning Ordinance:

 

.  PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.  Where more than one principal building or use is proposed to be constructed on a single lot, or any building with a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more, or any multi-family residential complex of five (5) or more units, shall be deemed a planned unit development (PUD).  Residential units within a planned unit development may include single family detached or attached units, townhouse developments, garden apartments, patio homes, and other types of residential units including manufactured homes and manufactured home parks.

 

Section 1005.  Planned Unit Developments.

 

     1005.1  Purpose.  The purpose of this section is to afford substantial advantages for greater flexibility and improved marketability through the benefits of efficiency which permit flexibility in building siting, mixtures of housing types and land use.  Residential densities are calculated on a project basis, thus allowing the clustering of buildings in order to create useful open spaces and preserve natural site features.

 

     1005.2  Planned Unit Development Defined.  Where more than one principal building or use is proposed to be constructed on a single lot, or any building with a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more, or any multi-family residential complex of five (5) or more units, shall be deemed a planned unit development (PUD).  Residential units within a planned unit development may include single family detached or attached units, townhouse developments, garden apartments, patio homes, and other type residential units including mobile homes and mobile home parks.

 

     1005.3  Land Development Standards.  The following land development standards shall apply for all planned unit developments.  Planned unit developments may be located in the all districts as special exception, subject to a finding by the Board of Adjustment that certain conditions be met:

 

               (1)  Ownership Control.  The land in a planned unit development shall be under single ownership or management by the applicant before final approval and/or construction, or property assurances (legal title or execution of a binding sales agreement) shall be provided that the development can be successfully completed by the applicant.

 

               (2)  Density Requirements.  There are no density requirements for non-residential uses as long as the proposed project does not violate the intent of the district in which it is located.  The proposed residential density of the planned unit development (land area per dwelling unit as shown in Article VII) shall conform to that permitted in the district in which the development is located.  If the planned unit development lies in more than one district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be separately calculated for each portion of the planned (unit) development that is in a separate district, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development.

 

               (3)  Frontage Requirements.  Planned unit developments shall have access to a highway or road suitable for the scale and density of development being proposed.

 

               (4)  Land Uses.  A mixture of land uses may be allowed in any planned unit development.  However, within residential districts, non-residential uses shall be primarily for the use of the PUD residents and shall not constitute the primary use in the planned unit development, and non-residential uses shall be carefully designed to compliment the residential uses within the planned unit development.  All planned unit developments must be compatible with and not violate the intent of the zoning district.

 

               (5)  Minimum Requirements.

 

                    (a)  The normal minimum lot size, setbacks and frontage requirements are hereby waived for the planned unit development, provided that the spirit and intent of this section are complied with in the total development plan, as determined by the Board of Adjustment.  The Board of Adjustment shall exercise ultimate discretion as to whether the total development plan does comply with the spirit and intent of this section.

 

                    (b)  Height limitations:  No building or structure shall exceed the height limitations of the district in which it is located.

 

                    (c)  Required distance between buildings: The minimum distance between buildings shall be twenty (20) feet or as otherwise specified by the Board of Adjustment to ensure adequate air, light, privacy, and space for emergency vehicles.

 

                    (d)  Every dwelling unit shall have access to a public or private street, walkway or other area dedicated to common use, and there shall be provision for adequate vehicular circulation to all development properties, in order to ensure acceptable levels of access for emergency vehicles.

 

 

               (6)  Privacy.  Each development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for all dwelling units.  Fences, insulation, walks, barriers and landscaping shall be used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of property and the privacy of its occupants, screening of objectionable views or uses, and reduction of       noise.  Multi-level buildings shall be located within a planned unit development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining low-rise buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such low-rise buildings.

 

             (7)  Perimeter Requirements.

 

                    (a)  Structures located on the perimeter of the development must be set back from property lines and rights-of-way of abutting streets in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance controlling the district within which the property is situated.

 

                    (b)  Structures other than single-family detached units, located on the perimeter of the development may require screening in a manner which is approved by the Board of Adjustment.

 

            (8)  Plans and accompanying documentation to ensure that the water and sewer systems proposed for the planned unit development have been approved by the appropriate local and State agencies and submitted as part of the application.

 

            (9)  At least one week prior to the date when the Board of Adjustment is scheduled to consider the development, the developer shall submit a copy of the development plan to the Code Enforcement Officer.  The development plan shall contain, where applicable, the following information:

 

                    (a)  Existing site conditions, including contours, water courses, identified flood hazard areas, any unique natural or man-made features.

                                         

                    (b)  Boundary lines of the proposed development, proposed lot lines and plot designs.

 

                    (c)  Proposed location and use of all existing and proposed structures.

 

                    (d)  Location and size of all areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as common open space, parks, recreational areas, school sites and similar public and semi-public uses.

 

                    (e)  The existing and proposed street system, including location and number of off-street parking spaces, service areas, loading areas, and major points of access to public right-of-way.  When more than one use is located in the planned unit development, the minimum required parking shall be the sum of the required parking for each use within the development.  Notations of proposed ownership of the street system (public or private).  Documentation from the Maggie Valley Volunteer Fire Department of the adequacy of the development's facilities for emergency medical and fire services.

 

                    (f)  Documentation of an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted where required.

 

                    (g)  Location and/or notation of existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way.

 

                    (h)  The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the development, including materials and/or techniques such as screens, fences and walls.

 

                    (i)  Information on adjacent land areas, including land use, zoning classifications, public facilities, and any unique natural features.

 

                    (j)  Where applicable, the following written documentation shall be submitted:

 

                         1)  A legal description of the total site proposed for development, including a statement of present and proposed ownership.

 

                         2)  A development schedule indicating approximate beginning and completion dates of the development, including any proposed stages.

 

                         3)  A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling and/or leasing of all or portions of the development.

 

                         4)  Quantitative data for the following: proposed total number and type of residential dwelling units; parcel size; gross residential densities; and total amount of open space.

 

                         5)  Plan for maintenance of common areas, recreation areas, open spaces, streets and utilities.

 

                          6)  Any additional information required by the Board of Adjustment in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed development.  The Code Enforcement Officer or the Board of Adjustment may waive a particular requirement if in its opinion the inclusion is not essential to a proper decision of the project.

 

               (10)  Any pedestrian and bicycle path circulation system and its related walkways shall be designed to minimize conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

 

               (11)  Layout of parking areas, service areas, entrances, exits, yards, courts and landscaping, and control of signs, lighting, noise or other potentially adverse influences shall be such as to protect the residential character within the PUD district and desirable character in any adjoining district.

 

               (12)  Conveyance and maintenance of open space, recreational areas and communally owned facilities shall be in accordance with the Unit Ownership Act (Chapter 47-A of the North Carolina General Statutes) and/or any other appropriate mechanisms acceptable to the Board of Adjustment.

 

Green Thumb Nursery- Commercial 1 District

Mr. Runnebaum proposes to lease the property from the Bennett family that own Realty World Real Estate Company.  The business will be for plant retail sells and landscape services. A small greenhouse will be located on the property as well. The property is located at 1975 Soco Road.  The land would be cleaned and a semi-permanent structure built for an office and a bathroom measuring approximately 20’ by 20’ that would be handicap assessable.   The hot –house will be to the rear of the property.

The Board had concerns about the semi-permanent structure meeting State Building Code.  Chairman Tilley asked that Mr. Bage review the proposed structure and report back to the board.  Chairman Tilley reminded Mr. Runnebaum that buffers, setbacks, landscaping design, and parking guidelines must be met.

 

The Planning Board will review the aforementioned items at the special called meeting to be held on June 8th, 2004.

 

Other Business

Chairman Tilley announced that as of last week the planning board lost Mr. Henson, the Code Enforcement Officer.  As chairman, Ms. Tilley worked with Mr. Henson closely and felt he was a vast source of knowledge and support. “He has been a tremendous help since he came on board.”   As chairman, Ms. Tilley was upset at the loss of Mr. Henson as well as the loss of the position. 

 

Two years ago, at the Board of Aldermen January Retreat, Chairman Tilley was promised a Code Enforcement Officer.  The town had been without an enforcement officer which led to a tremendous amount of violations.

 

FEMA has requested documentation from the town for the past ten years on flood plain administration.   There are violations throughout Maggie Valley that need to be addressed. If action is not taken to correct the situation; there will be strong repercussions.   After hiring an enforcement officer, the ordinances were beginning to be enforced.  Chairman Tilley felt enforcement was necessary for the town to grow in a positive direction. Mr. Henson’s kind but persuasive demeanor was perfect for code enforcement.  The planning board had begun to rely on Mr. Henson a great deal for interpreting the ordinance.

 

Mr. Bage the Building Inspector is trying to assist but the planning board felt that was a lot to ask. “It would be hard to do both jobs and do both jobs well.”  The majority of the planning board members felt they had been left stranded.

 

Mr. Pierce entirely agreed, stressing his disappointment in the Board of Aldermen taking the code enforcement officer from the town as a whole. “Many developers and private citizens depended on Mr. Henson for guidance. The loss of the position is a detriment to the town and the planning board.”

 

MR. PIERCE MADE A MOTION TO DRAFT A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MAKING THEM AWARE OF THE PLANNING BOARD’S FEELINGS AND MAKE A REQUEST TO CONSIDER REFILLING THE POSITION DUE TO HOW MUCH THE PLANNING BOARD DEPENDS ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE NEED TO HAVE A FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR TO ASSIST IN MEETING FEMA GUIDELINES.

MS. LYONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Ms. Lyons stated her disappointment.  As a land planner, Ms. Lyons talked with Mr. Henson a lot. Ms. Lyons was shocked that no one informed the planning board of the decision. “If there is not a code enforcement officer to enforce codes and regulations, why should volunteers waste their time sitting on a board developing procedures and reviewing plats? Now that the strategic plan is almost complete, an enforcement officer is needed more than ever.”

 

Mr. Pinter stated that he did not intervene in Mayor Pinter’s business.  He stated that he was not aware of what was happening but the changes have been made.  Mr. Henson is still going to be doing code enforcement but will be wearing a uniform, which in his opinion would make the job more effective.

 

Manager Buffkin addressed the planning board stating that there must be a misunderstanding or a lot of assumptions.  Mr. Henson was not forced out of code enforcement; he volunteered to transfer.  Code enforcement will be done by someone or several people. Manager Buffkin will be looking into getting a intern to help with the enforcement.

 

Ms. Lyons stated that it was her understanding that Mr. Henson did not volunteer to transfer to the police department.  The position of code enforcement would be dissolved June 30 and for the protection of his family he went to the police department.

 

Mr. Pierce felt that code enforcement done by a person in civilian clothes would be better as well as the need for a liaison with FEMA.

 

Chairman Tilley agreed, adding that the manager, building inspector, and the clerk have “their plates full” and spreading the duties could mean that code enforcement would not be done effectively.

 

Manager Buffkin stated that it was his responsibility to make sure that codes are enforced. The position of code enforcement is not in next year’s budget.

 

Chairman Tilley asked Manager Buffkin where the funds were reallocated.

 

Funds for road maintenance were increased and as stated earlier there is hope that the town will use an intern to assist.

 

At the end of the fiscal year the budget expires, the line items expire with any remaining funds going to the fund balance.

 

Chairman Tilley clarified the statement.  “So basically all positions are for only one year.”

 

Council can change any position.  Council has full control.

 

Manager Buffkin assured the board that codes would be enforced.  Mr. Bage can help regulate setbacks and such. The police department will enforce the nuisance ordinance and the manager will review plats.  The only down side that Manager Buffkin could see would be that the turn-around time for some services may take a little longer, such as plat review.

 

Ms. Lyons questioned the enforcement of outdoor sales.  It is not in a police officers job description to enforce outdoor sales, etc.

 

Manager Buffkin explained that the police are on duty 24/7 and can do the job. 

 

Mr. Pierce reiterated that the finesse would be gone.  “Tim [Mr. Henson] treated people with respect.”

 

Chairman Tilley felt that in 2002 the Board of Aldermen realized the need for a code enforcement officer.  Having the police department do enforcement was not efficient.  “We are where we were in 2002.”

 

Mr. Zerbock concurred adding that enforcement would become even more “muddy” and that code being done by several people would never hold up in court. “There is no continuity.” The Code Enforcement Officer is like quality control and should be done by one person that is charged with the duty of seeing that ordinances are being followed.  Mr. Zerbock also felt that people did what they wanted for ten years and the town is still trying to play “catch up”. The strategic plan going into a comprehensive plan will be useless without enforcement. Mr. Zerbock asked that Mr. Henson’s job be revaluated and that the town push for a code enforcement officer regardless of who fills the position.

 

Manager Buffkin asked that the planning board members report any violations they notice.

 

Chairman Tilley had great concerns about park models and RV’s being within the flood plain and in some areas the flood way. Chairman Tilley felt that it would take an extensive amount of time to “clean up the mess with FEMA and the RV Parks/ Campgrounds”.

 

Ms. Lyons agreed adding elevation and erosion control to the list of issues that need addressed in a timely manner.

 

Mr. Pinter asked if Mr. Henson could work part time for the police department and part time doing code enforcement. Mr. Pinter added that nothing is written in stone.

 

Chairman Tilley asked that the planning board members include the clerk in any e-mails and that a letter be drafted for each member to review and revise.  Chairman Tilley asked that everyone be respectful.

 

Correction or Approval of Minutes

The Board asked that the following sentence be revised under the heading By-Laws for Planning Board.

 

Mr. Zerbock will review the sample bylaws from Montreat and make suggestions at the June 2nd meeting.

 

AFTER THE NOTED CORRECTION, MS. LYONS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 5, 2004.

MR. ZERBOCK SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

 

The Board took a brief recess from 4:40 p.m. until 4:45 p.m.

 

Zoning of Campbell Creek

The Planning Board will look at zoning the Campbell Creek area after reviewing watershed issues at the next meeting.

 

Other Business

Mr. Bage will review and report his findings regarding Planned Unit Developments at the special called meeting on June 8, 2004.

 

Mr. Bage also suggested attaching a copy of the health department regulations pertaining to outdoor food vending along with the newly revised outdoor sales amendment to all businesses within Maggie Valley.

 

Decorative Moving Lights

Mr. Dan Massey submitted a petition signed by approximately 146 people that would like to see the sign ordinance amended to allow chasing/flashing lights. The lights would help Maggie Valley look more exciting and alive with activities.

 

North Carolina State laws limit flashing lights due to distracting traffic.

 

Mr. Massey understood it to be a town ordinance, therefore the issue is invalid.

 

Mr. Zerbock reminded the members that it would be counterproductive to allow flashing lights. The strategic plan shows that one of the biggest criticisms from the stakeholder groups are the large gaudy signs.     

 

Ms. Lyons suggested something similar to what Gatlinburg allows; the small white lights that line buildings and windows.

 

ON MOTION BY MR. PIERCE, SECONDED BY MR. ZERBOCK THE MEETING RECESSED AT 5:12 P.M. UNTIL JUNE 8TH AT 3:30 P.M.

MOTION CARRIED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________

              Patricia Tilley, Chairman

 

 

 

______________________________________

                 Vickie Best, CMC

                                    Town Clerk