Buncombe County Commission

Though the outcome of a second vote on proposed countywide zoning was never in doubt, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners labored over the issue for much of a 3-1/2 hour regular session on May 1. Commissioner Bill Stanley was absent due to a death in his family.

At the outset, during the premeeting public comment session, a dozen residents spoke out against the proposal, continuing the show of opposition from April 24’s official public hearing on the matter. Two residents endorsed zoning and praised commissioners for their courage in supporting the measure. Opponents, including Chairman Nathan Ramsey, repeatedly warned that accounts would be settled in the next county election on Nov. 4, 2008.

Legal matters

Leading into the vote, County Attorney Joe Connolly told the board that there had been suggestions that Ramsey, Commissioner David Young and Vice Chair Carol Peterson had conflicts of interest.

Connolly said the first allegation was over about 190 acres Ramsey owns with his brother and which might be sold to developers of The Cliffs at High Carolina. The land in question would be accorded an “open use” zoning status, as will about 85 percent of land in the county. “I simply do not see the conflict as far as you voting on this issue,” he declared.

As for Peterson, Connolly said there had been questions about her current or previous ownership of a farm. Connolly noted that Ramsey also owned a farm and stated,  “I do not see a conflict for the two of you participating in discussions of this issue or voting on this issue.”

Finally, the attorney asked, “Commissioner Young, is it true that you own a mobile home park in this county?”

“Yes,” Young answered.

“How many spaces?” Connolly queried.

Young replied, “Fifty-eight spaces. I believe 56 are currently rented.”

Connolly then explained that county staff members told him there are 627 manufactured home parks in the county, including 8,526 spaces for mobile homes. “Mr. Young has an ownership interest in one manufactured home park [that includes] substantially less than 1 percent of the spaces available.”

Ramsey interjected, “We would have those numbers, because mobile home parks are regulated by the county.”

Connolly continued, “I feel good that those numbers are accurate. The fact that a portion of the county as this ordinance is proposed does not permit mobile homes in all areas—I think 85 percent of potential zoned property would permit mobile homes. I do not see Mr. Young’s ownership of substantially less than 1 percent of spaces would cause him to recuse himself.”

Ramsey then said, “I would like to request our legal staff to develop a conflicts legal policy for our board to include an affirmative obligation for public disclosure of interest … and to require our board and staff to make determination on whether there is a conflict.”

Concurring, Commissioner David Gantt added, “I chaired a committee for MSD where we created an ethics policy.” Speaking to Connolly, he said, “I’d be glad to share that with you.” Then to the board, “Things like that probably need to be discussed before issues arise, to be proactive rather than reactive.”

Next, Assistant County Attorney Michael Frue introduced the three related ordinances that comprised the zoning package. However, the first matter he addressed was whether the Board of Commissioners had properly considered a Planning Board recommendation that a provision for a multifamily overlay district be stricken from the zoning proposal. As noted in the April 25 Xpress, Frue reported the Planning Board proposal at the April 17 regular session, together with the Planning Staff recommendation to do the exact opposite—retain the multifamily overlay. Commissioners appeared to agree with staff at that meeting, though they did not formally reject the Planning Board suggestion, since they are neither required to consider nor accept such recommendations under state law. However, an unnamed attorney raised the issue with the county legal department and Frue felt obliged to bring it to the board.

An extended debate ensued, with Ramsey wondering why the planning staff didn’t include his recommendation that Department of Housing and Urban Development-approved manufactured homes be permitted in areas zoned R-1 and R-2 (residential). He also suggested that he was unaware that commissioners had chosen to include the multifamily overlay.

Gantt retorted, “It seemed to me that neither the planning board nor the staff seemed interested in taking up your recommendation.”

Ramsey insisted, “Our board did not make a formal vote concerning multifamily.”

Gantt said, “We adopted the staff recommendation and instructed them to come back later. I think this board spoke on it. I think we need to make a decision here and look forward to staff’s recommendation concerning mobile homes and HUD-approved homes.”

Repeating what he told commissioners at the April 17 meeting, Frue said, “If we had changed the zoning ordinance, we would have had to re-notify the affected property owners.”

Commissioners voted 3-1 (Ramsey opposed) to approve the first item, a resolution of statement of consistency, required to affirm that the proposed zoning was in accord with other county statutes.

Next up was the zoning ordinance itself. But Gantt first made a motion “that we specifically rejected the Planning Board recommendation to remove the multifamily overlay.” Gantt, Peterson and Young endorsed the measure, with Ramsey opposed.

Gantt then made a motion “to approve staff recommended zoning ordinance that included the multifamily dwelling overlay district including staff recommended changes.” Young seconded.

Ramsey then apologized for promising some people at the April 24 public hearing that the commissioners would consider their rezoning requests at the end of the hearing. He said that seven or eight residents had spoken to him before the meeting, seeking changes in their zoning designation.

Young quickly observed that more than 600 people had complied with the rules and submitted such requests in a timely manner, with more than 500 receiving rapid approval. Peterson reaffirmed Young’s observation, but Ramsey again apologized and said he felt responsible for giving those people a faulty impression. Under the zoning rules, residents who apply for rezoning in the future will be charged an application fee and have requests evaluated by the planning board. However, those unhappy with their initial zoning designation but who failed to submit a request before the April deadline have been assured by staff that the fee will be waived and their requests expedited if they apply soon.

Ramsey then spoke at length about failing to hold a referendum on zoning as had been done in 1998. “If you have a vote, you ought to be able to convince them. Regarding Save Our Slopes or save our mountains, this zoning ordinance does absolutely nothing to achieve that. … My family owns a dairy farm, we’re farmers, and this ordinance isn’t going to do one thing to save farm land.” He added, “If our board is so committed to including HUD code homes … then hopefully we’ll make those changes in the future.”

Peterson pointed out that the county had provided funds for affordable housing, and said that $1.4 million in county expenditures had leveraged $21 million for affordable housing since 2001.

“The money we allocate for affordable housing is miniscule,” Ramsey retorted.

Gantt said, “As far as affordable housing, we can’t stop people paying huge amounts for billy-goat land, but what we can do is work with these groups. As far as hurting people with modest means, I think it’s really a bad thing when something is built nearby that crushes the value of their property. Under this you will be notified about what’s happening in your community.

“Tomorrow, if we pass this ordinance the Blue Ridge Parkway will have more protection than it has ever had in Buncombe County,” Gantt continued. “I think we know that is a treasure. Every use, everything that you’re doing now is grandfathered in. If anybody suggests to you that you’re going to have to stop doing what you’re doing, they’re wrong. Mobile homes can be replaced. Damaged or burned buildings can be replaced. No one is going to have to run out and change everything they are doing. It’s not the cure-all, but what it will do is give everybody a say in how our community looks in the future.” He concluded by thanking Peterson and Young, adding, “They have shown a lot of political courage. I think we can make this work and have a better county.”

Not to be rebuffed, Ramsey insisted, “It will increase the cost of housing. I put a land-use plan before this board in 2006 that included a lot of things that are not included in this zoning ordinance.” He reiterated other reasons he opposed the law and added, smiling, “The good thing about being chair is that nobody can limit me to three minutes.”

Gantt and Ramsey went back and forth a few more times before Gantt called the question. The vote, once again, was 3 to 1.

The final resolution rescinded a resolution adopted in 1979 and an ordinance adopted in 2003 that permitted community-based zoning subsequently adopted in Beaverdam and Limestone Townships. Township zoning is now superseded by the new zoning ordinance. The recision was also passed 3-1.

County-wide zoning became effective immediately upon passage of the measure, May 1.

Business and bridges

In the county manager’s report, CEO Greg Walker-Wilson of Mountain BizWorks (formerly Mountain Microenterprise), told commissioners, “In the past year, 600-some businesses accessed our services and loan products, and we have had at least a $50 million dollar impact this year on the local economy.” He noted that small businesses and employees comprise 20 percent of the county workforce and that nine winners of Mountain Xpress’ best-of awards are BizWorks graduates. “Mountain BizWorks is considered an expert around the country. There are now organizations like ours around the country, but ours was one of the first and we are one of the most successful,” he said. He also explained that his organization has gone from serving primarily new businesses to serving existing businesses, adding, “We helped create or sustain nearly 600 jobs in the last year.”

Next, Joe Minicozzi of the Asheville Design Center presented the volunteer group’s proposal for the I-26 connector project through Asheville. The design group, awarded a $15,000 grant under an American Institute of Architects program for design of projects that will affect communities for the next 150 years, used the funds to rethink the N.C. Department of Transportation’s proposals for the highway.

Minicozzi explained that the DOT’s plans would triple the amount of land currently used for the I-240, I-26 and Patton Avenue “spaghetti junction” at an estimated cost of $371 million. The total project would consume 273 acres, include 89 acres of asphalt and require nine bridges.

On the other hand, the ADC proposal requires far less land acquisition, comprises 36 acres of asphalt and four bridges and carries an estimated price tag of $150 million. Furthermore, the DOT plan continues the current traffic pattern where I-240 and Patton Avenue share the Smoky Park Bridge. The ADC envisions returning that bridge to local traffic only, replacing some traffic lanes with pedestrian and bike lanes and opening up adjacent land to development.

One of the best parts of the proposal, according to Minicozzi and the other architects on the design team, is that it will return large swaths of land to the tax rolls, to be redeveloped as an urban corridor with mixed-use buildings in an area three times the size of the current downtown district. While the plans crafted by the ADC are in some respects similar to ideas advanced by the I-26 Connector Group in the 1990s, the new proposals are more specific and draw on the DOT’s latest alternatives. In addition, the ADC has advanced the idea that the principal new bridge over the French Broad River should be “world class,” and as distinctive as the Golden Gate or other iconic spans in cities around the globe. “This is probably the most important development opportunity in our lifetime,” Minicozzi said.

“Everybody I’ve heard who’s seen your presentation is in love with it,” Young said, pausing. “Except DOT. How do you move this forward?”

Minicozzi replied, “Part of the process they’re in is the Environmental Impact Statement. We believe we’re part of that. We’re trying to keep on their schedule. Also, we’re using half the area, so it has to take less time [to build].“One of the objections DOT has raised repeatedly is that it believes deviating from its preferred designs will delay initiation of the project.

On board

Board appointments included: Fran Thigpen (National Park Service Trail Advisory Committee); and Judge Gary Cash, Judge Dennis Winner, Clerk of Court Bob Christy, Register of Deeds Otto DeBruhl, District Attorney Ron Moore, Sheriff Van Duncan, Judge Bob Lewis, Robin Merrill, Gene Bell, Bob Long, Carol Goins, and Sheila Lambert (Judicial Facilities Task Force).

The meeting adjourned a little after 7 p.m.