week of  date  2/20/02
 
 
 
Development rules put on hold while public input considered
By Scott McLeod

Proposed amendments to Haywood’s subdivision and pre-development ordinance could handcuff growth and drive up the cost of homes, builders and developers told commissioners last week.

A public hearing on the proposal drew a standing-room only crowd of more than 50 to the county board meeting. After 90 minutes of discussion, commissioners voted unanimously to table the ordinance, which had been forwarded to them by a unanimous vote of their planning board.

Even though the ordinance has been delayed, Commission Chairman Jim Stevens said it was his hope that some strong regulations to control roads and mountainside development would eventually be passed.

“My guess is that we are going to get a pretty tough ordinance. We’re going to protect these mountains when we do pass this,” said Stevens.

Earlier in the meeting, Stevens said it was pretty clear to him why an ordinance was needed.

“You say you sell these houses to tourists, but if we put homes up all the mountains and cut the trees, then those tourists aren’t gonna come and they aren’t going to buy the houses,” Stevens said.

“If this hurts you, I’m sorry, but we need to leave something for our kids and grandkids,” Stevens said.

The proposed amendments to the existing ordinance that have caused an uproar among many developers would dictate how roads in private subdivisions must be built. According to the proposal, private roads serving subdivisions with more than four lots would have to be at least 18-feet wide, and roads serving a subdivision with four or fewer lots would have to be at least 12-feet wide. Both would require a 45-foot right-of-way and the grade could not exceed 18 percent. Almost all opponents of the proposal said the county did need to come up with standards, but there was no general agreement on what those standards should be. Surveyor Kevin Ensley argued that, in many cases, roads that were wider and flatter caused more environmental damage than smaller roads.

“Wider roads create more runoff, lead to higher and steeper banks and cuts, require more grading and they take out more trees and vegetation,” he said.

“Jobs will be lost, tax revenue will be lost, and young people can’t afford the homes right now,” he said. “This proposal is like going to Champion (Blue Ridge Paper) and saying they have to take 24 percent of the color out of the water.”

Steve Hughes, president of the Haywood Home Builders Association, said at least two provisions in the ordinance could prove particularly harmful. The provisions refer to access by emergency vehicles and could prompt banks to deny loans and insurance companies to deny coverage, which would in turn “condemn” these subdivisions, according to Hughes. One of those provisions says that “municipal and other governmental services may be restricted or not be furnished to the property owners using private roads for access.”

After the meeting, Planning Board Chairman John Burgin and County Planner Kris Boyd said some useful information had been gathered.

In particular, Boyd said the wording in the proposal referring to the emergency vehicles should be “consistent.” He said the word “not” is probably not the best choice, but he also said developers and realtors should be up front about access.

“If emergency vehicles can’t get to some places, people might want to reconsider buying,” said Boyd.

Commissioner Mary Ann Enloe said she was most concerned with private landowners whose property might be landlocked because they have an access road but may not be able to convince adjoining property owners to agree to the 45-foot right of way requirement in the proposal.

“That’s a very real concern to me,” said Enloe.

Burgin said he was glad that contractors and developers spoke up.

“This is simply part of the process. We will definitely look at some of the issues brought up here today,” said Burgin. “No one here is against the ordinance. Everyone seems to understand that we’ve got to protect these mountains and protect home buyers and developers. If it takes a long time to get this done, that’s OK.”

The planning board meets the first Monday of each month at annex II.