|
Commissoners OK moratorium on new subdivisions
By Lynn Hotaling and Amy Hall
After weeks of controversy, which was reflected by full-page ads, letters to the editor and an overflow crowd at a Feb. 27 public hearing, local officials last week (March 8) enacted legislation aimed at slowing the pace of development in Jackson County.
Prior to the 4-1 vote that put a five-month moratorium on new subdivisions in place, commissioners heard from 17 speakers who were almost evenly split (nine for and 8 against) between proponents and opponents of the development pause.
Jackson County officials (top right photo) including, from left, county attorney Paul Holt and Commissioners Tom Massie and William Shelton, listen to speakers including Carol Odom (top left photo) and Nola Brown (bottom right photo) during last week’s (Feb. 8) county commissioners meeting during which officials voted 4-1 to impose a moratorium on new subdivision construction, triggering applause from proponents of the ban. Odom, who opposed the moratorium, told commissioners a moratorium wouldn’t save the mountains but only regulate them; Brown, who said she favored the move, said she was a fifth-generation county resident and that it’s sad so much of the mountains she once explored will be off limits to her son and his cousins. – Herald photos by Nick Breedlove
Commissioners offered several amendments aimed at making the slowdown more palatable. These include shortening the moratorium’s duration to five instead of six months; adding a one-time exemption that would allow a property owner to subdivide 25 acres or less into no more than three parcels; and establishing a procedure that will allow new subdivisions to proceed if the developer is willing to sign a contract with the county ensuring that minimum standards will be followed.
The moratorium is needed in order to give the county’s appointed planning board time to draft a subdivision ordinance, say the four commissioners – Tom Massie, William Shelton, Joe Cowan and Mark Jones – who voted for it.
Opponents of the plan cited lack of research by commissioners and potentially devastating economic consequences if commissioners put a moratorium in place. In voting against the measure, Commissioners’ Chairman Brian McMahan said that if there was a possibility of anyone losing a job, he couldn’t support it.
All five commissioners explained their views prior to casting their votes.
Cowan, a retired educator, told the crowd that he believed the changes made to the draft ordinance between the Feb. 27 hearing and last week’s vote proved that officials had kept an open mind and tried to soften a moratorium’s impact.
“Our job is to balance competing interests the best way we can,” Cowan said. “I endorse (the moratorium) – it shows we’ve been listening.”
Massie, who is employed as a regional field representative by the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund, echoed Cowan, saying that he thought commissioners had reached the best possible compromise by shortening the duration, adding a way for smaller parcels to be subdivided during the moratorium and formulating a plan to let subdivisions move forward under a development agreement.
“The only ones affected will be those who want to build subdivisions with no regulations,” he said.
Jones, who works for High Hampton Inn in Cashiers, indicated he’d had hundreds of e-mails and phone calls and discussed the pressure commissioners had been under to reach a compromise.
Shelton, a Qualla-area farmer, said he was “shocked by the fear” the moratorium proposal had triggered.
“All the information led me to believe there would be no job loss,” he said.
He also said he was “astounded by the misinformation” that made the moratorium process more difficult, and conceded that commissioners may have been partly to blame for not explaining themselves well enough.
“But we worked in good faith for the citizens of Jackson County – we never purposely misled anyone,” Shelton said. “Some of this misinformation is deliberate, but I guess that’s politics.”
According to Shelton, the opportunity for potential developers to enter into development agreements “will allow work to continue and address the issue of job loss.”
Though he appeared to know he was outnumbered, McMahan, who works for one of the county’s largest developers, Balsam Mountain Preserve, said that he didn’t think a moratorium would accomplish anything.
Though the crowd was not as large as the 1,300-plus people who packed the auditorium at Southwestern Community College on Feb. 27, Thursday’s (March 8) commissioners’ meeting filled the Justice Center’s large courtroom in advance of county officials’ vote on a proposed subdivision moratorium. Commissioners heard from 17 speakers, nine of whom favored the moratorium, before it was approved by a 4-1 vote. Commissioners shortened the duration of the moratorium to five months and approved an amendment that allows developers to proceed with new subdivisions by agreeing to minimum standards and a procedure for establishing vested rights. – Herald photo by Nick Breedlove
“It’s not really going to stop anything,” he said. “We’ve got to think of the cost. Let’s ride this ship out for the one or two more months it will take to draft a subdivision ordinance.”
During the public comment period that preceded the vote, Sam Lupas of Cashiers told commissioners of an economic impact study done by Western Carolina University business professor James Carland that indicates up to 1,600 jobs could be lost if a moratorium is enacted.
“It’s pretty obvious there could be a direct economic effect,” he said.
Cashiers real estate agent Marty Jones also referred to the Carland study, citing a $32 million figure in lost labor and payroll.
Others who opposed the moratorium took aim at proponents who rallied behind a “Save our Mountains” slogan.
“Their mountains aren’t theirs – they’re trespassing every time they go hug a tree,” said Carol Odom of Glenville. “The building is not going to stop – thank God – (with a moratorium) you’re not saving the mountains, you’re regulating them.”
Taking the other side, Mary Jo Cobb of Tuckasegee encouraged the commissioners to proceed with the moratorium.
“It’s time for an ordinance, and we need a short time out (while one is developed),” she said.
Another Tuckasegee resident, Nola Brown, who said her family can trace Jackson County roots back five generations, lamented the loss of the area’s once vast open spaces.
“When my sisters and I were kids, we could roam all over,” she said. “With all the private gates, much of the mountains are now off limits to my son and his cousins.”
The moratorium decision was not the only one commissioners made March 8. They also instituted a requirement that developers fill out a land development compliance permit before starting work, approved a procedure for establishing vested rights and named members to a Vested Rights Advisory Committee.
According to county planner Linda Cable, the land development compliance permit will provide the planning department with a means of collecting information in one place. The new document can be filled out at the building inspections office and left there. County staff will be responsible for collecting the permits and returning them to the planning office.
Before the new requirement was approved, Cable outlined changes to the draft ordinance, including a passage that narrows the definition of which “development” activities require the completion of the new permit. These include any activity requiring a building permit; any land-disturbing activity requiring a county erosion control permit; any development proposed in a flood hazard area; any activity requiring a watershed protection occupancy permit; and any other activity regulated by county land use ordinances.
The vested rights ordinance outlines a procedure by which a determination of vested rights can be made. If a developer can prove that he has already invested substantial financial resources toward developing a piece of property, he is said to have vested rights and will be allowed to proceed with his plan while the moratorium is in effect.
Any landowner may apply for a determination of vested rights. That decision will be made by the planning director with the assistance of the Vested Rights Advisory Committee. The planning director’s decision can be appealed to the county planning board; a planning board decision can be challenged in Superior Court within 30 days of the ruling.
Massie submitted three names as recommendations to serve on the Vested Rights Advisory Committee – Sylva attorney Jay Coward, Sylva surveyor Joel Johnson, and retired WCU professor Ralph Triplette, who also lives in Sylva.
Coward, Johnson and Triplette were unanimously approved to the new committee.
|
