|
Tuesday, 06 March 2007 18:26 |
By JIM GENARO
After a lengthy public-input session, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 27 voted 4-1 to approve new regulations on the height and density of multifamily dwellings at elevations above 2,500 feet.
However, because the vote was not unanimous, the board will revisit the issue at its meeting Thursday to vote on it again.
Chairman
Nathan Ramsey cast the dissenting vote. Ramsey said he opposed the
measure as it stood because it did not account for variations in
steepness of slopes.
The new rules
would limit apartments and condominiums built on land between 2,500 and
3,000 feet in elevation to a maximum height of 35 feet and a density of
one dwelling unit per two acres. Above the 3,000-foot level, such
buildings could not exceed 25 feet and could be no more than one unit
per four acres.
During the
public hearing, most speakers expressed support for the measure, though
many said it was a temporary fix and that more comprehensive planning
was needed, while others urged the board to adopt a temporary
moratorium on all development.
ìSlow down the rush and think out the long term,î one woman said. ìAs the old adage goes, ëFirst, do no harm.íî
The woman noted that the current steep-slope regulations passed by the board last year do not cover multifamily dwellings.
Another woman,
who said she was a member of the Swannanoa Pride Coalition, said that
the ordinance was not perfect, but good enough for the short term.
ìThe perfect is
the enemy of the good,î she told the commissioners. ìThe need for
protection of our mountains is too important to wait for an ordinance
that is perfect.î
Kendal Hale, a
massage therapist who owns a home in Buncombe County, said, ìThe last
thing I want to see when I look out at my mountains ó and I do think of
them as ëmy mountains,í even though they are Godís mountainís or the
goddessí mountains ó is more houses. And certainly, I donít want to see
more town homes and condominiums.î
One man took a
more practical approach, saying that the county should redesign its tax
structure and pass economic incentives to developers who build where
sewer and water connections already exist.
ìCarrying capacity is the key factor,î he said. ìWe must look at this as a whole.î
By looking at
road capacities and the size of the drainage basin, a more realistic
view of the areaís population capacity could be gleaned, he argued.
Furthermore, he proposed, vacant land should not be taxed, so that landowners would have less incentive to develop their land.
Steve Sloan told the board, ìWeíre lucky we donít have a number of egregious steep-slope projects staring at us right now.î
He noted that from 2001 to 2006, the number of subdivisions in Buncombe County grew from 216 to 657.
ìThe frightening thing is that this is just the leading edge ... of the 77 million baby-boomers about to retire,î he added.
Gary Roberts, a
member of the countyís Soil and Water Conservation District, addressed
the commissioners, but noted that he was speaking on behalf of himself,
not his board.
He said his
organization exerts great efforts to conserve water in the county. ìBut
what we do in a yearís time can be completely wiped out be a
development-gone-wrong ó and weíve already seen that in Alexander.î
He added that
the ordinance needs to address steep slopes below the 2500-foot level,
of which, he noted, there are many in the county.
One of the only
speakers to oppose the measureís passage was John Carroll, president of
the Asheville-based Council of Independent Business Owners.
ìI feel as though thereís a train leaving the station ... and thereís a lot of passengers left behind,î he said.
Carroll urged
the commissioners to take 30 to 60 more days to develop an ordinance
and to send it back to the planning board for revision.
This comment
prompted Mountain Voices Alliance member Heather Rayburn to ask, ìI
wonder how many people on the planning board are members of Mr.
Carrollís group. I bet he would like it to go back to the planning
board.î
Rayburn went on
to complain of ìpredatory developersî who exploit loopholes in the law.
This, she said, is why it is necessary to pass a moratorium on new
construction until the board can pass more stringent laws.
ìMoratorium isnít a bad word ó itís a planning tool,î she said.
|
