Planning board votes to deny rezoning request near Sunset Drive
Recommendation to keep 11 acres designated town residential
Fred McCormick
The Valley Echo
September 29, 2020
A rezoning proposal seeking to double the density allowance for 11 acres of land near Sunset Drive will not be recommended for approval, following the Sept. 28 regular monthly meeting of the Black Mountain Planning Board.
Members of the advisory board voted 3-2 to deny the request, which would change the existing Town Residential District (TR-4) designation of three adjacent parcels of land to Neighborhood Mixed Use (UR-8), after more than a dozen area residents expressed opposition.
A Sept. 3 rezoning application submitted by property owner Ruby Begley asked the town to consider allowing smaller lot sizes for just over 8 acres making up two tracts on Vance’s Drive, and 3 acres at 134 Sunset Drive. In her request, Begley stated that reducing the minimum required lot sizes would create opportunities for affordable housing and cited the land’s proximity to I-40 as a reasonable location for higher density development.
Under its current TR-4 designation, four dwelling units per acre are allowed on the property, while UR-8 permits eight dwellings per acre. The vast majority of the land surrounding the parcels is zoned TR-4, while a large swath to the east carries a Conservation Residential District (CR-1) designation.
More than 30 members of the public attended the meeting, which was hosted on the virtual platform Zoom. Jennifer Tipton, senior administrator for the town’s planning department, read submitted comments opposing the spot zoning request.
Public feedback received at the meeting was decisively opposed to rezoning the land. Nearby residents expressed concerns about the ability of the existing infrastructure to support future developments in the area and the increased traffic that could result from higher density development.
While many of the public comments addressed the development of the land, town attorney Ron Sneed reminded citizens that the proposal being discussed was only a request to rezone the property.
“There is no development proposed,” he said. “Will rezoning allow greater density? Yes, but there is nothing that is currently being proposed.”
Planning board member Jesse Gardner spoke in favor of the request.
“I’m pro-density,” he said. “We’re a town, and we’re supposed to be more dense than rural Buncombe County. I think eight units an acre is appropriate, because when you develop this you won’t get that many, you’ll probably get four or five.”
Noise from the interstate would likely decrease the value of homes that could be built on the property, Gardner continued.
“It’s loud,” he said. “That would be the reason you probably couldn’t build $600,000 homes right there next to I-40 on quarter-acre lots. I think it’s a good spot for a more-dense, more-affordable footprint of homes.”
While Chas Fitzgerald stated he is typically not in favor of spot zoning requests, he cited specific factors in supporting Gardner’s position.
“I do agree with Jesse that the proximity to the interstate devalues this property,” he said. “If you’re going to attract people to buy homes, they probably need to be more affordable. I also agree with his prediction that the density would be far less than eight units an acre when you take into account the easements, streets and slopes.”
Fitzgerald acknowledged that improvements would need to be made to Sunset Drive before developing the property.
Fellow board member Pam Norton strongly opposed the request.
“I’m going to go on record and say I’m totally against this,” she said. “It is definitely spot zoning to me. It backs up to no other UR-8, and too many of the residents made too many good points.”
Norton added that she was opposed to the property becoming a high-density development.
“If we keep filling this town with people, the reason people are coming here will be gone,” she said. “We won’t have any trees or green space left.”
The prospect of rezoning property relatively close to the center of town made Rick Earley uneasy, he said.
“I’m really concerned about giving up greater densities,” he said. “At this point, I would like to keep it (TR-4), unless I hear something compelling. I could not support that.”
Begley’s son David, who grew up on the property, spoke about how much the area had changed during his life, as he addressed the board on behalf of his mother.
“It’s not the same place it used to be,” he said. “I have ownership, my brother lives up above and my eldest son lives up there as well. We’re not about to let anything happen up there that will devalue the property.”
The board moved to allow additional public comments on the matter before reviewing and completing a worksheet to establish the finding of facts in the application hearing.
Board chair Chris Collins made a motion to deny recommending the rezoning request based on the potential impact on adjacent property owners and the surrounding community. Norton and Earley supported the motion, while Gardner and Fitzgerald voted against it. Board members Scott Reed and Lauronda Teeple were not present for the meeting.
The planning board’s recommendation to deny the rezoning request will be presented in a public hearing before the board of aldermen during its November regular monthly meeting.