| Despite opposition, zoning ordinance clears final hurdle |
| Tuesday, 08 May 2007 | |
|
From Staff Reports
The measure was approved 3-1, with board Chairman Nathan Ramsey casting the opposition vote. Those voting for regulating land use included David Gantt, David Young and Carol Peterson. The fifth commissioner, Bill Stanley, missed the meeting because of an out-of-town funeral. The previous week, the commissioners gave preliminary approval — on a narrow 3-2 vote — to pass the zoning law, with Stanley and Ramsey casting the dissenting votes. That action followed a sometimes stormy public hearing that lasted more than 3.5 hours and drew more than 400 people, most of whom opposed the plan. Passage of the ordinance required a second vote. Just before the final May 1 vote, resident John Herron told the commissioners he opposed zoning because “it’s getting us in a communist situation.” Conversely, resident Steve Sloan praised the board for having the “vision and the courage” to enact zoning. In voting for zoning, Gantt said, “I think it’s a tool we need to protect our mountains” In contrast, Ramsey said he opposed the ordinance — in part — because it would increase the cost of housing. Also, he said the board should have had the voters decide the matter. (In 1999, 55 percent of Buncombe voters opposed zoning in a non-binding referendum.) As for concerns raised that some commissioners should have recused themselves from voting on the ordinance, County Attorney Joe Connelly said he saw no conflicts. For instance, resident Peggy Bennett said Young owns an interest in a mobile home park, while the ordinance prohibits new mobile homes in a portion of the county. Connelly said there are 627 mobile home parks in Buncombe and that Young does not stand to profit from the ordinance. The same reasoning, he said, holds true for concerns about Ramsey’s ownership of 190 acres that he plans to sell to a developer, and Peterson’s ownership of a farm. Following approval of the ordinance, a certificate of zoning compliance is now required from the county to erect, move, add to or alter any structure in portions of the county served by the Metropolitan Sewerage District.
More-rural areas are covered by the less-restrictive Open Use District
regulating high-impact land uses, such as asphalt plants, mining
operations and chip mills. |