|
By Jim Genaro
BLACK MOUNTAIN ó Disputes over gated communities and height limits of buildings dominated discussion at the Black Mountain Board of Aldermen last Monday night, as the board unanimously voted to annex a third phase of The Settings and rehashed a series of zoning changes made at its previous meeting.
The incorporation of the Phase III-A portion of The Settings, a large upscale gated community, follows two similar annexations of earlier phases of the development.
However, during public comments about the annexation, Harry Hamil,
chair of the townís Planning Board, complained that The Settings had
been uncooperative about letting members of his board come onto the
property.
In one instance, Hamil said, a planned trip by the Planning Board was
cancelled by The Settings when developers learned that the trip would
constitute an official meeting and the public, therefore, would be
invited to come.
ìI think it is very important for the board to address the issue of access, in particular,î Hamil told the aldermen.
Hamilís comments prompted resident Blake Madden to step up and complain about the nature of gated communities in general.
Madden, a 14-year resident of the town, said that he had never been to
a meeting of the board and had not planned on speaking, but that he
felt moved to do so after hearing about Hamilís difficulties gaining
access to The Settings.
ìThereís something about the whole idea of the gated thing that just
bugs me,î he told the board. ìThe people on the street are wondering
what this town is gonna look like in 10 years. Itís not gonna be the
small town I came to ó if youíre from here, itís not gonna be the town
you grew up in.î
Maddenís comments prompted applause from several people in the audience.
Bob Gunn, a resident who described himself as a ìunabashed populistî
and who is a candidate for town alderman, agreed, saying he did not
understand how the owners of The Settings, ìon a technicality, so to
speak, ... can say, ëHey, these are our rules and itís private property
and we donít have to cooperate.íî
Gunn urged the board to approach developments in ìa little more thorough public, equitably spirited manner in the future.î
However, Chip Knight, a spokesman for The Settings, said the issue of
access primarily has more to do with protecting visitorsí safety.
He also noted that The Settings is private property and that it caters
ìto a certain segment of our population that expect amenitiesî such as
locked gates.
After the public forum, the board unanimously approved the annexation
and Alderman Joan Brown thanked Knight for ìthinking about my safety.î
The board then went on to an equally heated discussion of several zoning changes it had made last month.
The aldermen, in July, had changed the townís zoning rules to allow
properties in the I-1, or light industrial, zones to be 55 feet, rather
than the previously allowed 35 feet in height.
The move had been passed to allow Ingles Supermarkets to expand its Black Mountain warehouse.
At that meeting, the board then went on to change several propertiesí
designations to I-2, or heavy industrial, so the properties would
continue to keep the 35-foot cap.
At last Mondayís meeting, the board changed some of the wording of the
previously passed changes in order to make them consistent with the
townís comprehensive plan.
Furthermore, one of the rezonings, which had been passed 3-2, had to be
voted on again because of rules that state a measure being voted on the
night it is introduced requires a two-thirds majority or a second vote.
Brown, who had supported the height-limit change, but opposed the rezonings, expressed strong objections to the changes.
ìI feel very strongly that we have made a mistake in pushing through
something that should have come through our planning board,î she said.
ìI wish this board had the courage or guts or something to say we made
a mistake.î
But Alderman Mary Leonard White said that the board had looked
extensively at the issue on three different occasions, adding, ìI think
weíve had plenty of timeî to consider the issue.
Though Brown again voted in favor of the height change, she cast the sole dissenting vote against the other two measures.
She then asked whether there was any legal way to reverse the boardís decision.
Planning Director Elizabeth Teague answered that a rezoning of a
specific property cannot be reconsidered for one year under the boardís
rules.
However, she added, an exception can be made if the planning board
either determines that the rezoning has ìsignificantly changed the
characterî of the area rezoned or discovers new factors that were not
considered during the initial discussion of the rezoning.
Brown then proposed that the board ask the Planning Board to review the
properties that had been rezoned for additional reccomendations.
That measure passed unanimously without any discussion by the board.
|
