Aldermen continue public hearing on voluntary annexation
Brooks Cove Road decision delayed
Fred McCormick
The Valley Echo
January 14, 2021
A public hearing regarding the proposed voluntary annexation of 16.45 acres of land just east of the town limits of Black Mountain will be continued until the board of aldermen meets, Monday, Feb. 8.
The decision came after a lengthy, and complicated discussion in the Jan. 11 regular monthly meeting.
Aldermen considered a request submitted Oct. 13 by William Honeycutt, et al, to voluntarily annex the parcel, which sits on the east side of Brooks Cove Road. Approximately 17 homes are on the street, which is within the town limits.
The applicants asked that the property, which is currently zoned Residential 1 (R-1) by Buncombe County, be rezoned to Urban Residential 8 (UR-8) upon annexation. The request for annexation was recommended, 5-0, by the planning board in its November regular meeting. The UR-8 zoning, which is consistent with the adjacent property and allows less density than its current designation, was unanimously recommended in a December special called meeting.
Planning board member Jesse Gardner recused himself from the matter, due to his position as a representative of the property owner and developers, who wish to put approximately 50 single-family homes on the parcel.
He informed the planning board in November that annexation would allow developers access to Town water services. Gardner also told the board that the project could move forward regardless of annexation.
Many residents on the dead end street expressed opposition to the development, citing concerns that the existing infrastructure does not support the project and a fear that the project could change the character of the rural community.
While the annexation itself is not the subject of controversy among the people who live on Brooks Cove Road, the potential zoning designation is a point of contention. The board, however, is required to hold separate public hearings on the matters and considered the potential annexation first.
“What you have is a situation where, in your head, you have to consider the two items,” Town attorney Ron Sneed told the board. “But, we don’t have the authority to set zoning until it’s annexed.”
Gardner addressed the board on behalf of the property owners and developer, and identified concerns regarding the potential impact of separately considering the annexation and rezoning requests.
“I’m trying to thread the needle with a seller who wants to sell the property to a client,” he said. “We’ve requested UR-8 zoning on our application, which is what’s made it to this board with a unanimous recommendation from the planning board. If that’s not going to be the case, we’d probably be interested in withdrawing the application.”
Gardner contended that discussion about the potential rezoning was relevant to the annexation hearing. Town planning director, Jessica Trotman, provided information related to the rezoning request. She emphasized that the parcel abuts a UR-8 district and that any other zoning designation would be considered spot zoning, and subjected to a different process.
“If zoned UR-8, it would provide the developer with an opportunity to use smaller lot sizes, which allows a development to be condensed into a smaller footprint,” she said.
Trotman used the Town Residential 4 (TR-4) designation as an example, explaining that while it allows a lower density, the regulations would likely lead to a larger footprint and require more clearing of the lot.
“Also, if a parcel is in Town limits it is subject to our post-construction stormwater ordinance, which is significantly more restrictive than the county’s,” she said. “The density allowance would be eight (per acre) in UR-8, as opposed to 10.”
She added that Gardner has indicated developers are interested in building three homes per acre on the land, which would not trigger a mandatory traffic study. Gardner later stated the developer plans to widen the road adjacent to the property.
Alderman Tim Raines visited the property with residents of Brooks Cove Road and noted that while the neighborhood was zoned UR-8, none of it appeared to be developed to that capacity. Ryan Stone and Archie Pertiller, Jr. agreed with his assessment.
“Most of it looks like SR-2 within a couple hundred feet of that property,” Pertiller said.
The public comments submitted were related to the rezoning request, and initially deferred to that hearing. However, as discussion about the appropriateness of the UR-8 designation continued, Town Manager Josh Harrold read the public’s feedback for approximately 20 minutes.
The overwhelming majority of the comments expressed concerns regarding the potential impact a development could have on the rural community. Some residents of the neighborhood asked each of the aldermen to visit the site to better understand the setting.
Following the public comments, Gardner shared additional information on the plans for the property. He shared his belief that the tract is appropriate for development. While the rezoning request is for UR-8, he stated access for water and sewer to serve 50 homes was requested.
He acknowledged that Brooks Cove Road was narrow.
“It does need to be widened to be safe for two cars to pass,” Gardner said. “On average it is about 16 feet wide when it runs east, and as it turns north along our property frontage, it narrows to about 14 feet.”
The developer, according to Gardner, would widen the road to 18 feet along the 750 feet of the property. The development group would be willing to have a conversation with the Town about widening more of the street, he added.
“In order to meet the price point, and stay at what we believe is a reasonable density of three units per acre, the property needs to be zoned UR-8,” Gardner said. “The UR-8 allows me to cluster the lots, and keep smaller footprints and more affordable pricing.”
The Black Mountain native indicated he would allow current residents to give feedback regarding the design, and address any concerns. He added that the tighter regulations enforced by the Town should help alleviate many of the issues raised by the public.
The fact that the property was going to be developed regardless of the annexation outcome complicated the matter, according to Doug Hay.
“If annexing the property will put tighter restrictions for stormwater runoff and other environmentally sound development, then is that the right thing to do?” he said.
A motion by Stone to continue the matter until next month’s meeting was approved unanimously. The public hearing lasted just over an hour.