|
Tuesday, 13 March 2007 15:51 |
By JIM GENARO
The Buncombe County Board of Commissioners last Thursday gave final approval to new rules that will limit the height and density of multifamily developments on slopes above 2,500 feet in elevation.
The board voted 3-2 to adopt the measure, with Chairman Nathan Ramsey and Commissioner Bill Stanley voting against it.
However, the board also voted to create a subcommittee to review the ordinance for 60 days and evaluate what changes, if any, are necessary.
The
commissioners already had given the rules their preliminary approval at
their Feb. 27 meeting. Only Ramsey had voted against the measure then,
but because it was not unanimous, the boardís rules mandated that a
second vote must be taken.
Under the new
measure, condominiums and apartment buildings will be limited to a
height of 35 feet if they are higher than 2,500 feet above sea level.
Furthermore, the rules mandate a density of no more than one building
per two acres of land at that elevation. Above 3,000 feet, such
developments are limited to 25 feet tall and one unit per four acres.
About 100 people
packed the commissionersí chambers, many of whom wore stickers saying
ìSave our Slopes.î During the public comment portion of the meeting,
several speakers urged the board to adopt the new rules.
ìItís imperative to provide for the safety and health of the residentsî of multifamily dwellings, one woman told the board.
At higher
elevations ó particularly on steep slopes ó a number of issues arise,
she said, including sewage discharge, water shortages, access of
emergency vehicles and mudslides.
Jerry Rice told the board that it should look after the interests of the poor, not wealthy developers.
ìThe poor people donít have a chance,î he said. ìThey canít afford to rent property. Itís a health and safety issue right now.î
One woman urged the board to go ahead and adopt the rules and fix them later if necessary.
ìIn the immortal words of John Coltrane, ëYou snooze, you lose,íî she told the commissioners.
Another woman appealed to the board to think of the impact development has on children.
She read a
passage from a book by child development researchers that indicated
that access to nature is crucial for childrenís ability to learn and
grow in healthy ways.
ìThey need room to play outdoors and this is how they learn to live with nature,î she said.
However, Russel
Wood, regional vice president of the North Carolina Association of
Realtors, argued against adoption of the new regulations.
ìI am concerned
when we look at going to the density requirements,î he told the board.
ìYou talk about driving some real sprawl ó youíre going to create real
sprawl by doing that.î
He added that
the rules will likely drive housing costs up, making a negative impact
on efforts to create affordable housing in the county.
After hearing from the public on the proposed ordinance, the board members debated its merits among themselves.
Defending the proposal, Commissioner David Gantt noted that the rules have no effect on development below the 2,500-foot level.
ìSo anyone who
has suggested that this is an ordinance that would discourage new condo
development ó thatís not accurate,î he said.
However, Ramsey said his objection to the ordinance was that it did not differentiate between elevation and steepness.
ìThe way this
ordinance is written, you could have flat land and if the height is
2,500 feet, youíd be limited to four acres per (duplex) unit,î he noted.
Commissioner
David Young said he had reservations about the proposal, particularly
because of its potential affect on affordable housing.
However, he added, ìIím still in favor of this because it closes that loophole.î
Before the vote,
Ramsey noted that he had initially asked the planning board to develop
an ordinance to cover multi-family developments, but that he did not
support the proposal as it stood.
ìTo say this is a steep-slope ordinance is inaccurate because there is no slope requirement,î Ramsey added.
However, Gantt
fired back, ìWhat it does do is protect our mountains over a certain
elevation.î He noted that land at higher elevations needs different
degrees of protection than lowlands.
A humorous
exchange took place when Gantt requested that photographs be displayed
of developments that would be in violation of the new rules.
As several
pictures of ridge-top developments were projected on the overhead
monitors, Gantt said, ìWhat we can agree on is that our ordinance today
is going to prevent developments like that from happening.î
However, Ramsey
then pointed out that the pictures in question were of town homes ó
which are not covered under the proposed rules.
ìItís gonna stop multifamily developments that look like that,î Gantt replied, prompting laughter from some audience members.
After the vote,
Stanley said he voted against the measure because he had come to the
conclusion that it had ìserious issues,î that he previously had not
realized were as important as he now thought them to be.
After the vote,
Young proposed the creation of a subcommittee to review the rules for
60 days as a way to address his aforementioned reservations about the
ordinance. That measure was passed unanimously.
|
|
|
