|
Sylva leaders review hillside, steep-slope ordinance
By Stephanie Salmons
Sylva leaders finished reviewing a proposed steep-slope ordinance during a June 5 work session that preceded the town board’s regular first-Thursday meeting.
The session, like one in May, included both town board and planning board members.
According to Sylva Planning Director Jim Aust, the ordinance is aimed at mitigating potential hazards such as landslides and damage from storm water runoff as well as reducing erosion on hillsides.
Planning board members have been discussing the draft ordinance since February.
Proposed regulations would implement density – number of buildings – requirements for slopes greater than 30 percent; other regulations regarding tree and vegetation preservation, structure height and lighting would begin with slopes of 15 percent.
Property in R-1 and R-1A zoning classifications with a 30-34 percent grade can have a maximum of 0.8 houses per acre, which means roughly 2 acres is needed per house, Aust said. In R1-B, R-2 and R-3, the density would be set at 2.7 houses per acre, he said.
On parcels with slopes of 35-39 percent, only 0.6 houses per acre would be allowed in R-1 and R-1A classifications while 1.9 houses per acre would be allowed in the R1-B, R-2 and R-3 zones, according to the draft ordinance.
On grades of 40 percent or more, the proposed ordinance would limit housing to 0.3 houses per acre in R-1 and R-1A and to one house per acre in R1-B, R-2 and R-3.
Town board member Harold Hensley, who voiced concerns last month about the adoption of a hillside development ordinance, spoke up again last week.
“What are we supposed to do if it’s less than an acre of land? Just pay taxes while it sits there?” he asked. “If someone has a piece of property valued at $200,000 to $300,000 per acre, he should be able to put more than one house on it.”
Existing parcels would be grandfathered in and the ordinance would not apply to them, Aust said. The new rules would apply only to parcels subdivided after the adoption of such an ordinance, Aust said.
Town board member Stacy Knotts said the purpose of the ordinance is not to render smaller lots unmanageable.
The draft ordinance includes some incentives to encourage developers to follow its provisions. For example, individuals who use less-sensitive areas of their property, which would reduce the grading required, could receive density bonuses, Aust said.
Property owners who leave 30-40 percent of their site undisturbed would be eligible for a 30-percent density bonus, with a 60-percent density bonus available if 60 percent of the site is preserved, Aust said. To gain those bonuses, property owners would be required to permanently protect undisturbed portions of their tracts through conservation easements, the draft ordinance states.
Such policies hopefully would encourage developers to construct more housing on less-sensitive portions of their property, Aust said.
Non-residential developers could also be eligible for intensity – size – bonuses if they also use less sensitive areas. To qualify, builders would have to reduce the size of the building’s footprint by building up (multi-story) rather than putting all the building’s area on the first floor, Aust said during a follow-up telephone interview.
A parcel’s slope is determined by its entire area, Aust said. Less-sensitive areas likely would be those portions of the parcel with grades that are less than the overall grade.
Height requirements are also outlined in the ordinance.
Applicable to areas with a natural slope of 30 percent or greater, the maximum height of principal structures will be limited to two stories – a maximum of 30 feet – on the uphill side of the structure and three stories – a maximum of 40 feet – on the downhill side of the structure, the proposed ordinance reads.
In addition, accessory structures can’t exceed 20 feet in height on any side.
The ordinance would require revegetation when any slope greater than 15 percent is graded.
Although several present expressed concern over the ordinance’s wording that would require property owners to replant native species of plants and trees, Aust said such regulations wouldn’t apply to landscaping within yard areas.
Revegetation needs to be part of the ordinance because contractors sometimes grade 80 percent of a parcel but don’t build on the entire area, Aust said, adding that the resulting bare areas could be prone to slides and cause erosion.
While the revegetation rules remain in the draft ordinance, Aust said he followed a recommendation to change the wording to say “prefer native vegetation.”
Board member Sarah Graham said she regarded the draft rules as a step in improving Sylva’s environment.
“There’s an awful lot of talk these days about how bad our water is because of dirt, and it’s because of development and irresponsible uses of our land,” Graham said. “I see this as giving guidelines for responsible development.”
Board member Maurice Moody agreed that the town needs a steep-slope ordinance.
“I think the town needs some control but the rules need to make sense to John Q. Public,” he said, adding that if the draft law’s requirements stem from a concern for public safety, maybe an ordinance should apply to existing parcels as well.
According to Aust, town board members will likely set a date for a public hearing on the draft ordinance during their town meeting, which is planned for 9:15 a.m. next Thursday, June 19, at Town Hall.
|
