Faced with two options for siting a new animal shelter, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners decided to take advantage of both. At the board’s April 17 session, County Manager Wanda Greene presented the commissioners with an offer from the state of North Carolina to lease six acres in Swannanoa to the county for $1 per year. Meanwhile, the Asheville Humane Society (which operates the shelter) pitched a site on Pond Road, not far from the WNC Farmers Market. The commissioners voted to build a new shelter on the Pond Road site and accept the 25-year lease offer from the state. According to the motion by Vice Chair Carol Peterson, the Swannanoa site will be used “for animal issues that cannot be met at the Pond Road location.” After the commissioners unanimously approved the motion, 30 or more residents in the audience broke into sustained applause.
In the zone
Next up was Assistant County Attorney Michael Frue, who presented a recommendation from the county Planning Board: Cut the multifamily overlay district from the county’s proposed zoning ordinance. The overlay pastes a multifamily-development ordinance passed last month into the new zoning regulations, and Frue said the Planning Board would rather keep those rules as a stand-alone ordinance. The Planning Board’s recommendation to the commissioners said only that it was “due to technical deficiencies” but gave no further explanation.
“Other than the multifamily issue, they just had two or three very minor recommendations concerning the plan,” said Frue.
“Is this board bound to approve the recommendations of the Planning Board?” asked Chairman Nathan Ramsey.
“No,” said Frue. “And it is the recommendation of the planning staff and legal staff that the multifamily [rules] remain in the zoning proposal.”
Asked about his department’s position later, Planning Director Jon Creighton told Xpress, “Multifamily development has been a big loophole, and it really needs to be in the ordinance.”
Ramsey then asked if the commissioners could change any elements of the draft zoning ordinance.
“The standard would be that if it is going to affect a substantial number of families, you might have to redo the [public] notice,” Frue explained.
“Do you know how many people came and requested changes in zoning status?” asked Commissioner David Gantt.
“There were roughly 570 in the MSD area that appealed,” said Frue. For the vast majority, the planning staff agreed that the change was reasonable. About 70 have been rejected and told they can appeal their cases one last time: Thursday, April 19, or Monday the 23rd.
“So out of all the people in the county, there are just 70 people who disagree with their zoning?” responded Gantt. Frue said that was correct.
During further discussion, Ramsey asked, “So people could still appeal later?”
“Yes,” said Frue. “As [Zoning Administrator] Jim Coman frequently notes, Limestone has had zoning for 25 years, and there are still people requesting rezoning.”
Commissioner David Young, participating via speakerphone, asked, “If we vote on the 24th after the public hearing and it is not unanimous, do we have another vote?”
Frue replied, “Yes, but because the public hearing was announced in advance, it can pass that day on a unanimous vote.”
Ramsey, grinning, piped up, “But we’re not expecting a unanimous vote.” Ramsey has made it clear throughout the process that he is opposed to the zoning plan and will vote against it.
Further discussion of the April 24 public hearing followed. “We went out and looked at the [A-B Tech] auditorium this morning; it holds exactly 400 people,” reported Clerk to the Board Kathy Hughes. “College officials who have held hearings there before recommended that we use a time limit per person.”
After the commissioners had considered the relative merits of three- and five-minute time limits, Young suggested: “Why don’t we wait until we see how many people are there? If there are four people there, they can have five minutes each.”
Ramsey, laughing and shaking his head, replied, “Then we’ll decide at the beginning of the public hearing.”
The next agenda item was setting the date for the public hearing.
“Motion for approval,” blared Young’s voice through the speakerphone.
“I think this board made a big mistake when the majority of this board refused to have another [zoning] referendum,” asserted Ramsey. “Whether you are for it or against it, I think that was a mistake.” Then, looking ahead to the 2008 Board of Commissioners elections, he predicted: “The electoral process will cure that. I’ve always conceded that the way the people of the county vote is the way to go.”
Peterson thanked the planning staff for its work on the issue, including the seven community meetings held at middle schools around the county. “We gave ample opportunity for people to comment and ask questions,” she said. “It has been a superb process as far as public information is concerned. The opportunity was there for questions to be asked, and the answers were there.”
“It was a great joy to participate in those pubic meetings,” Ramsey allowed.
The commissioners then voted 4-1 to hold the public hearing, with Ramsey opposed.
The last straw(s)
During the public-comment period preceding the meeting, residents Julie Brandt and Elaine Lite raised questions concerning the county’s $1-a-year lease of property in Woodfin to Progress Energy. Speaking for the grassroots group People Advocating Real Conservancy, Brandt said: “There are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the lease. Why is there no clause terminating the lease if the power plant isn’t built? Why was there no public discussion? Why didn’t the county get fair market value for the land? Why did Progress [Energy] get a handout from the county with the $1 lease? Why was the site said to be on the landfill, when we found out it is adjacent to the landfill? Why does the lease allow land to be used for any purpose instead of just for a power plant? Who was involved, and why did they make such a bad deal for the county? Who was standing up for the people of the county?” In conclusion, Brandt said, “We call for rescinding of the lease and investigation of who was responsible.”
Ramsey and Gantt repeated previous assertions that questions about the lease had been forwarded to County Attorney Joe Connolly. Connolly then proposed that the Legal Department present its answers at the May 15 Board of Commissioners meeting.
And though Gantt branded many of the concerns raised “straw questions,” he said they still deserved answers. “I’m glad you’ve raised them, Julie,” he said, suggesting that the board set a specific timetable to respond. No such action was taken, however.
At 5:36 p.m. the meeting was continued to April 24.
Look, I’m for zoning, but the fact that they didn’t have a referendum just baffles me. Also David Gantt running for Commissioner and saying that he was against zoning reeks of a broken promise to those who voted for him. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a wildly different County Commission after their next election.