The Blowing Rock Planning and Zoning Board met on Thursday, March 21, 2002. Chairperson Susie Greene called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were Ron Oberle, Cobb Milner, Paul Peterson, George Snyder, and Mary Greene. New members present were Dennis Quinn, Bill Parker, Albert Yount and David Cox. Staff present were Kevin Rothrock, Planning Director, Don Holycross, Town Manager and Sonya Long, Administrative Assistant.

Chairman Greene stated that Cobb Milner and George Snyder had been reappointed by the Town Council to serve on the Planning Board. She asks that all new members and reappointed members be sworn in.

Mr. Oberle made a motion to appoint Susie Greene as the Chairman and Mary Greene as the Vice- Chairman, seconded by Mr. Snyder. Mr. Milner closed nominations. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Peterson made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2002 meeting, seconded by Mr. Snyder. All were in favor.

Mrs. Greene asked to be excused from the Alexander discussion due to conflict of interest.

Mr. Rothrock read the staff report. He stated that Mr. Chuck Davis, P.E. on behalf of Mr. Carlton Alexander requested a major amendment to allow the encroachment of a retaining wall into the rear property line landscape buffer. The retaining wall was mistakenly built, at most, three (3) feet from the property line when it was originally proposed eight (8) feet from the line and behind the "opaque" landscape buffer. Because the error directly affects an adjacent property owner, this is considered a major amendment to the approved conditional use permit.

Mr. Chuck Davis, engineer for the project was next to present. He stated that the wall was a mistake and was not in the approved plan. After the mistake was made they tried to incorporate it into the plan. Mr. Davis stated that the plan that was before the Board was a much better plan. The applicant is planning on covering the wall with ivy to help cover the remainder of the wall. He explained that a new detention system was incorporated, which allows the wall to become terraced.

Chairman Greene asked for a formal recommendation to excuse Mrs. Mary Greene from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Oberle made the motion to excuse Mrs. Greene, seconded by Mr. Peterson. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Don Watson, Mr. and Mrs. Alexander’s attorney stated that the Alexander’s had contacted Mr. and Mrs. Keys to inquire about purchasing additional property. He explained that this occurred before the retaining wall was built. At that time the Keys were not interested in selling a portion of their property. They felt it would interfere with future building and anything built that close to their property would be a detriment.

Mrs. June Keys, adjoining property owner, spoke next. She stated that they were not interested from the beginning in selling any of there property. They would like to eventually build another house if possible. Mrs. Keys explained that they came to the Planning and Inspections office to review the plans for the Alexander project when they were going through the approval process. She stated that they had no problems with the plans as presented then. When the retaining wall was built, they contacted the Town with their concern over the location of the wall. They were also concerned over new survey stakes. The Keys decided to get a new survey done of their property. Their survey showed one corner in dispute. Mrs. Keys stated the retaining wall as built was a detriment to their property and would like to see the wall removed and built in the location as the approved plans show. She also pointed out that the wall was encroaching on their property.

Mr. Davis stated that the detention plan had been changed to the underground chambers after the wall had been built. This had nothing to do with the wall. The underground system didn’t come available until recently.

Mr. Rothrock stated he would have approved the new retaining wall administratively if the plan were brought in before the wall was built. The new plan is a much better plan.

Mr. Carlton Alexander, owner of the property, was present. He stated he had contacted the Keys before the project had started with regards to purchasing additional property. When the project was started they ran into a lot of rock. The elevation of the building was raised due to the amount of rock. Mr. Wayne Green, surveyor, had pointed out to the applicant that he should contact the Town if any changes were to be made with regards to the retaining wall. Mr. Alexander did contact the Town. He stated that he had spoken to the Planning and Inspections office about the height of the wall and that he was told that as long as the wall was not over 5 feet in height, we would not need an engineered plan. Mr. Alexander had assumed that when talking about the height of the wall that also covered any changes made to the location of the wall. Mr. Rothrock requested a letter from the Alexanders stating any changes that were going to be made. Mr. Alexander stated that a letter was delivered to the Planning office and as far as he knew Mr. Rothrock had not been to the site to do an inspection.

Mr. Parker asked questions regarding the dispute in the property lines. Mr. Rothrock stated that had nothing to do with the Town and was between the property owners. He also stated that any measurements taken would have to be from the original property line.

Mr. Peterson stated that this was a case of miscommunication. The conditional use permit had been written and approved and there wasn’t an appropriate agreement with regards to the retaining wall.

Mr. Rothrock suggested that he read aloud the letter from Mr. Alexander requesting changes in the retaining wall. He pointed out item number one (1) of the approved Conditional Use Permit, which states that any changes in the Conditional Use Permit must be put in writing.

Mr. Watson asked the Board to take into consideration that the plan before them was a much better plan for everyone involved and this had been a misunderstanding between the Town and Mr. Alexander.

Mr. Peterson stated that he agreed that the new submitted plan was better but the adjoining property owners were affected by the retaining wall being placed in the wrong location and that was his deciding factor. He added that the applicant acted in good faith but did not follow procedure.

Mr. Rothrock explained to the Board that at the February 12^th Town Council meeting, Town Council referred the Town Center District proposal back to the Planning Board for adjustments and further discussion. The Town Council recognized language, which needed some modifications. Some suggestions that were made at that meeting were; 1) Make one (1) Town Center District with equal requirements on both sides of Main Street, 2) All remaining Central Business District should have one zoning designation and should have same street setbacks, and 3) A lot of discussion was focused on the 35-foot street setback. The general consensus was that 35-feet was too excessive.

Mr. Rothrock gave a brief summary of 53 properties in the Town Center District. They reviewed total value of the properties, total land value and land value price per square foot. Mr. Rothrock also included a study that was done by members of the Planning Board on the Town Center boundaries.

Ms. Sue Glenn was present to speak about the Town Center District proposed ordinance. She stated that the application for an arbitrary 35 foot setback to one side of Main Street and no setback to the other side seemed unfair, particularly since many of the properties on the east side of the street were presently undeveloped or did, in fact, set back from their front property line.

Ms. Glenn also spoke about the "grandfathering" clause in the Town Code. If this provision is taken out of the Town Code, you would not be able to build back your building in the same foot print if the building were destroyed.

Mrs. Ginny Stevens was present. She provided pictures of Blowing Rock from the past to the present. She pointed out the changes that had occurred and spoke about the character of the Town. Mrs. Stevens suggested some type of compromise between the Town and the business owners.

Mrs. Pat Gray, commercial property owner stated her property was fronted by two streets and would suffer greatly from the new setback proposal. She asked the Board to reconsider such harsh setbacks. Mrs. Gray stated this would only devalue the property along Main Street.

Several merchants were present to speak against splitting the town into two or more districts with different setbacks. They agreed that all properties should be treated equally.

Dr. Bunkey Davant stated that this new proposal would be making the properties unusable and would be considered a taken of the property. He explained that the Board should consider the highest and best use.

Chairman Greene pointed out the reason this was looked at was to maintain the character and integrity of the Town and the Town Council had asked the Planning Board to begin working on some type of proposal.

Mr. Charlie Travis stated the new proposal would have a great impact on the Town. He suggested that the Board come up with a definite definition of "Character" and uses the tools in the Blowing Rock Town Code in considering this ordinance.

Mr. Joe Campbell suggested looking at each property individually. That would be the only fair thing to do since each property is so different.

Mr. Oberle stated that when the study was done they looked at each individual piece of property, even went out and measured each one. He suggested that the Board look at reducing the front yard setback to 15 –25. He also stated this was only the beginning stage of the ordinance and that a lot of good comments were brought up at this meeting.

Mr. Peterson made a motion to table any further discussion regarding the proposed Town Center ordinance and the Nonconforming Section until further information could be received, seconded by Mr. Oberle. All were in favor of the motion.

Chairman Greene stated that she was giving Mr. Wayne Green 10 minutes maximum to address the Board.

Mr. Green stated he would be talking with Mr. and Mrs. Alexander about the decision made and would be advising them to withdraw their application for a major amendment and go straight to court or the Board of Adjustments.

With no further business, Mr. Peterson made a motion to adjourn at 9:14 p.m., seconded by Mr. Oberle. All were in favor of the motion.

______________________________________ ____________________________________