►
Description
A recording of the Board of Adjustments' Meeting from Feb. 12, 2020. You can learn more about the Board of Adjustments here: https://www.buncombecounty.org/governing/depts/planning/adjustment-board.aspx
A
C
D
D
The
answer
would
be
not
necessarily
so
this
is
what
I
can
read
to
constitute
special
damages.
Damages
must
be
distinct
from
those
damages
to
the
public.
At
large.
Proximity
in
and
of
itself
is
insufficient
to
grant
standing.
It
does
bear
some
weight
on
the
issue.
Property
value
is
a
factor
in
standing,
but
not
determinate
and
may
not
be
enough
on
its
own
additional
adverse
impacts.
Ie
some
secondary
impacts
need
to
be
shown
by
the
property
away.
C
Guess
my
question
or
statement
would
be
that
my
damages,
because
I
don't
want
to
get
into
the
issue
and
you
don't
either
home
values.
My
damages
would
be
that
I'm
on
overlook,
probably
seven
times
a
day
and
my
damages
would
be
my
life.
My
issue
is:
is
traffic
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
either
as
pop,
hopefully
as
standing
and
I,
would
ask
for
you
to
vote
if
I
do
have
standing,
but
my
the
only
reason
I'm
asking.
That
is
because
you
are
stating
that
you
need
that
for
in
order
to
consider
a
continuance.
C
If
possible
would
be
that
there
would
be
a
continuance
for
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
Question
is
what
is
reasonable.
You
can
put
the
date
on
it
and
to
give
the
d-o-t
time
to
give
an
accurate,
a
statement
of
what
that
roads
going
to
look
like,
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is,
is
that
they
may
need
land
that
mr.
de
lucia
is
going
to
build
on
some.
The
the
widening
of
that
road
has
to
come
from
one
side
or
the
other.
There's
no
question
about
that.
C
E
Before
that,
before
we
do
that,
well,
are
you
done
I'm
done?
Here's
the
question
not
not
pertaining,
not
not
necessarily
connected
to
the
participants
here
in
this
room,
but
does
anyone
that
lives
adjacent
to
or
on
overlook
road
could?
Is
it
conceivable
that
what
they
have
standing
and
the
answer
I
think
is
yes,
I?
Think.
D
E
D
C
F
F
F
Tells
my
next
point
in
terms
of
the
stated
issue,
which
is
by
his
own
words,
traffic.
That
is
exactly
a
public
harm.
That's
the
public
harm,
so
there
are
no
special
damages
when
it
is
alleged
damage.
If
you
take
it
as
true
that
would
affect
everyone.
That's
exactly
the
first
point
I
made
when
I
had
the
standing
objection
to
standing.
Was
that
point.
C
C
D
Mr.
chair,
my
advice
would
be
to
make
the
motion
in
and
the
the
the
board's
bylaws
state
that
we
should
proceed
by
a
Moute
motion.
So
I
would
I
would
make
the
motion
either
to
grant
or
not
to
grant
I
understand
that
it
can
be
confusion
or
confusing,
but
I
think
this
state
can
I'm.
Sorry.
The
chair
can
restate
the
the
motion
and
make
sure
that
ever
excuse.
A
G
A
A
There's
no
finding
of
standing
at
this
time.
I
will
direct
anybody
who
comes
up
next.
To
remember
that
this
is
a
bifurcated
consideration.
I
don't
want
to
imply
or
impute
any
decision
as
to
a
motion
to
continue
we're
solely
addressing
the
issue
of
standing.
We
will
not
and
cannot
consider
anything
about
a
motion
to
continue
until
the
standing
issue.
J
C
C
Will
be
done
because
it
bends
did
in
the
official
citizen
by
the
engineer
of
the
DFT.
Maybe
that's
public
comment,
but
it
has
been
stated.
It
is
underway
and
if
I
could
I
would
think
it'd
be
judicious
to
take
your
time,
the
property
and
mr.
delicious
looked
at
it
for
six
and
a
half
years
it
it
wouldn't
as
I
grandmother
used
to
say
it
wouldn't
hurt
it
wouldn't
hurt
to
take
your
time.
B
B
A
K
F
Don't
have
any
comments
on
that,
but
we
will
address
that
in
a
rebuttal
it
was
unbeknownst
to
us
and
the
perceived
heightened
traffic.
That
would
happen
with
a
second
traffic
study
which
we
can
do,
but
that's
only
gonna
drive
down
our
number
because
our
number
is
going
to
be
the
numerator
and
a
larger
denominator,
but
we'll
get
to
that
in
rebuttal.
Evidence
is.
A
A
You
so
before
the
next
witness
comes
up
and
speaks
I
want
to
make
it
known
that
we
we've
done
a
few
of
these.
At
this
point,
Oh.
In
fact,
every
single
person
on
this
board
has
been
together
on
the
standing
issue
at
at
length.
At
this
point,
the
traffic
studies
were
very
familiar
with
the
process.
We
all
take
constructive
knowledge
of
how
that
works.
I
think
we've
heard
from
d-o-t
professionals
before
we've
heard
I.
Don't
think
that
opposing
counsel
would
object
to
the
process.
We're
aware
of
that
part.
A
So,
to
the
extent
that
we
bring
up
anything
else
relating
the
traffic
I'd
request,
it
be
new
information
or
that
it
be
an
expert
and
that's
solely
out
of
respect
for
the
process.
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
to
have
to
overrule
anything.
I,
don't
want
to
have
to
put
someone
through
a
legal
process.
We
we
are
aware
of
how
the
traffic
process
works,
and
we've
heard
the
concern
that's
being
offered,
that's
something
that
I
I
believe
is
going
to
be
addressed
by
both
sides
and
let's
keep
it
to
noon
on
repetitive.
A
L
E
L
L
My
name
was
mentioned
by
the
attorney
as
being
in
very
close
proximity
to
the
state
of
development.
My
husband
and
I
own,
the
house
at
104
Galloway
Drive,
which
is
directly
across
the
street
on
overlook
we're.
Obviously,
in
a
very
technical
hearing.
We
thus
need
EPSA
expert
counsel
to
get
expert
counsel.
We
need
a
continuance
to
get
a
continuance.
Someone
needs
standing
every
applicant
for
standing
has
been
rejected.
L
A
I
guess
I'll,
respectively,
respectively,
addressed
that
consideration.
The
hearing
to
which
people
are
referring
to
standing
was
found
for
the
individuals.
It
was
a
long
drawn-out
hearing
because
it
required
a
healthy
amount
of
testimony
to
get
there
and
we
could
not
by
law,
offer
specific
guidance
more
than
than
we've
done
today.
It
is
not
impossible
to
find
standing
I'm
we're
sharing
on
proximity
alone.
That
is
not
enough.
I
would
hear
testimony
from
any
person
who
wants
to
offer
it
as
to
standing
it's
not
an
impossible
standard,
it's
something
we.
A
A
E
E
A
I,
don't
want
to
leave
people
with
the
impression
that
proximity
is
becoming
the
the
sole
factor
here,
even
the
main
factor
for
what
our
counsel
said.
I,
don't
think
I'd
be
crossing
a
line
and
telling
you.
The
proximity,
has
not
been
an
issue
for
a
single
one
of
the
people
who
have
spoken
today
so
far.
For
me,
I
can't
speak
to
other
board
members,
so
you
know
where
I'm
coming
from
and
what
I'm
sharing
with
you.
In
terms
of
my
legal
analysis,
it's
not
the
proximity
part
that
I'm
inquiring
about.
G
What
what
staff
read
first
and
I'm,
no
attorney
believe
me,
it's
all.
I
can
do
to
understand
it,
but
what
he
read
is
what,
if
you
could
hear,
especially
towards
the
end
of
it,
that's
what
I
look
at
as
a
board
member.
It's
what
our
parameters
are
with
what
he
has
read.
Did
you
read
it
twice,
yeah,
that's!
Those
are
the
things
about
standing
is
what
he
read,
because
that
that's
for
me
my
parameters
that
I
use,
whether
or
not
somebody
has
standing
so
I,
don't
know
if
you.
G
E
Anything
else
of
the
impact
of
valuation,
health
and
safety,
any
of
those
things
that
are
alleged
and
don't
have
to
be
proven,
that's
correct,
all
of
it,
taken
together
or
separately
or
together,
can
be
the
basis
for
granting
standing.
In
other
words,
there's
not
any
one
of
those
issues
that
you
have
to
have,
but
a
group
together
can
can
grant
standing
and
it's
a
fuzzy
gray.
Mr.
D
Chair
I
would
caution
the
board
of
about
trying
to
oversimplify
the
standing
standard.
It
is
complicated
and
I
I
do
empathize
with
the
public
trying
to
navigate
these
legal
terms
and
the
legal
procedures,
but
I,
don't
I
also
don't
want
to
oversimplify
it.
It
is.
It
can
be
a
complicated
process.
Well,.
E
N
E
What
is
the
compositing?
Well,
if
you're
touching
overlooked,
Road
you-you-you
have
you
would
get
a
you
can
discuss
valuation
because
you're
there
on
the
road
you
can
discuss,
not
just
traffic
but
the
safety,
the
welfare
of
of
your
family.
There's
all
those
issues
that
impact
you
but
I
don't
recognize
that
they
impact
somebody
over
there.
Indeed,
Dale
Chester
on
that
road,
though
they
appeal
to
me
to
make
standing
valid
one.
D
Thing
I
would
encourage
the
board
to
do
this.
Is
these
are
difficult
decisions,
and
this
is
tough
to
do.
We
are
talking
about
issues
that
impact
people's
property,
and
it's
very
personal-
that's
not
lost
on
me.
I
would
encourage
the
board
to
look
at
all
these
in
the
same
framework
and
to
be
very
mechanical
in
the
way
you
look
at
them.
So
I
would
hear
from
this
witness
who's
told
you
her
side
of
the
story.
L
A
A
A
A
F
L
F
In
terms
of
the
traffic
safety,
issues
is
kind
of
the
same
thing
that
we've
heard
before
in
terms
of
any
unique
damage
to
her
property.
That's
already
occurred
by
living
on
overlook
road.
It's
already
a
busy
thoroughfare
and
we've
seen
from
our
traffic
impact
analysis
that,
even
at
the
height,
is
going
to
be
less
than
a
1%
1%
impact
on
on
traffic
on
and
overlook
road,
same
thing
on
same
objection
with
property
value
and
I'm.
A
H
F
F
The
future
residents
is
going
to
be
a
busy
thoroughfare,
and
so
we
end
up
getting
caught
on
that
on
it
being
so
busy
that
it
starts
to
slow
down
speeds
or
it's
not
busy
enough
and
people
speed
on
on
overlook,
but
that
traffic
issue
was
already
there
and
so
any
damage
that's
been
done
to
her.
Property
has
already
happened
by
living
on
overlook
road,
ok,.
A
A
A
He,
the
one
you
were
just
talking
about
with
respect
to
correct
to
study,
can
I.
Ask
him
a
question
directly.
I'll
ask
the
view
absolutely.
Is
it
your
contention
that
this
would
not
affect
her
property
any
more
than
a
diminishment
de
minimis
level?
The
increase
of
1%
is
it.
Is
that
a
fair
and
accurate
assessment
of
how
she
would
be
affected
by
this
I'm.
F
H
A
If
we're
in
a
realm
of
of
even
you
acknowledging
that
everyone's
generally
being
affected
negatively
by
traffic,
that
makes
it
difficult
for
us
to
make
a
finding
of
unique
special
damages
based
on
what
we've
heard
so
far
solely
because
this
is
something
that
generally
will
have
at
best.
If
we,
if
we
took
everything,
you're
saying,
is
true
kind
of
been
like
a
summary
judgment
approach,
it
still
affects
everybody
who
lives
around
here.
A
A
You
all
live
within
close
enough
proximity,
I'm
looking
for
that,
plus
one
of
special
damages
and
I
just
I'm
not
seeing
that
part,
but
I
would
invite
the
board
I
think
the
vote
would
be
the
most
appropriate
thing
going
forward
for
all
of
us
since
we're
we
all
have
our
understandings
of
the
law.
If
someone
needs
clarity,
myself
or
mr.
Freeman
are
happy
to
offer
what
we
can,
but
apart
from
that
I
think
we
should
default
to
voting
on
these
matters.
N
E
This
idea
of
the
standing
to
me
is,
it
should
be
narrowed
on
I
think
we
did
kind
of
narrow
it,
but
it
there's
something
that
doesn't
ring
quite
right.
If
an
individual
out
here
having
a
group
of
individuals
that
do
not
have
representation
are
fighting
for
their
standing,
then
this
board
is
obliged
to
take
a
broader
view
of
that
issue,
and
certainly
someone
in
the
Overlook
Road
has
to
touch
overlook
Road
one
there
has
standing
and
it
this
woman
touches
overlook
road
she's,
not
asking
for
this
that
be
turned
over.
N
I
Logic
kind
of
dictates
that,
because
you're
right
next
to
something
you
would
have
standing,
but
it
seems
to
us
that
the
law
doesn't
look
at
it.
That
way,
and
that
may
very
well
be
unfortunate,
but
you've
got
to
have
something
else
involved
there
and
then,
in
this
particular
case,
doesn't
show
it
because
it
is
a
broad
traffic
problem
that
impacts
everybody
and
and
building
you
know
not
liking.
I
E
But
whatever
we're
grouping
it
all
together,
I'm,
actually
very
supportive
of
the
development
I
think
it's
Paulson,
it's
the
best
we've
seen
I'm
only
looking
at
the
standing
is
a
narrow
issue
it.
It
cannot
be
so
that
not
one
person
in
here
that
touches
on
overlook
road
doesn't
have
standing
and
that's
where
we're
going.
E
A
I
say
just
for
clarity:
I
want
I,
want
to
say
this
as
a
comment,
I'm
hoping
that
this
puts
some
of
this
to
bed.
Mr.
Freeman
can
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong.
This
is
tantamount
to
no
one
is
saying
that
it
is
impossible
for
anyone
here
to
have
standing
or
that
the
other
people
in
fact
could
not
prove
standing.
This
is
what
we're
about
to
do
is
tantamount
to
a
judge
saying
to
a
party
in
a
criminal
case.
A
Surely
you
have
a
better
defense
than
that?
Let
me
prove
it
for
you
and
I'm
not
trying
to
do
that.
I'm,
not
saying
that
the
other
people
can't
come
back
and
prove
standing.
This
is
something
that
could
be
proven.
It
has
not
been
proven
yet,
so
we
have
to
make
our
decision
based
on
what's
before
us,
not
what
could
be?
A
That's
the
only
thing
that
I'm
offering
you
guys
in
the
way
of
comparison,
because
I'm
not
saying
that
the
people
here
are
not
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
prove
standing
under
different
circumstances,
but
I
don't
want
to
change
the
definition
of
standing
based
on
what
what
they
might
have
or
what
they
may
be
do
have.
I
can
suspect
a
lot
things.
I,
don't
think
that
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
speculate
and
change
our
standards
solely
based
on
what
they
could
have
proven
if
they
had
different
circumstances.
A
C
L
A
Have
a
motion-
a
second
based
on
I,
won't
cut
off
any
more
conversation,
if
you
guys
have
something
to
say,
but
that
is
my
two
cents
from
a
legal
perspective
here
and
we
can
do
we
can
vote
whatever
we
need
to.
If
you
want
to
have
more
conversation
about
it,
we
can
and
probably
should.
But
this
is
where
we're
at
right
now
for
the
board
motion.
A
Did
you
get
that
recorded
okay
at
the
present
time,
based
on
what
has
been
presented
thus
far,
you
there's
a
finding
that
you
do
not
have
standing.
This
is
not
a
conclusive
finding
that
no
one
can
have
standing
and
making
that
clear
for
everyone.
This
is
something
that's
very
specifically
nuanced
and
needs
to
be
submitted,
a
proper
way
that
is
I,
understand,
admittedly
difficult,
but
based
on
what
we
have
in
front
of
us.
This
is
this.
These
are
the
decisions
that
we
have
to
make
right
now,
yes,
ma'am,
my.
J
J
Marco
and
I
live
at
110
Galloway,
which
is
approximately
even
with
the
first
L
and
Callaway
on
the
property.
A
budding
overlook,
I'm
not
requesting
standing,
because
my
comment
is,
it
does
seem
extremely
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
given
the
situation
of
this
development
to
achieve
standing
just
as
a
neighbor
and
a
concerned
citizen.
But
my
question
or
comment
is
given
that
I'm
unclear
on
how
we
can
achieve
standing
n
or
have
representation
and
hoar
even
be
able
to
solicit
expert
testimony
on
our
behalf.
A
F
A
Is
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question
I
would
say
a
conversation
with
an
attorney
is
prudent
on
that,
and
they
can
walk
you
through
exactly
if
not
represent
you
how
to
do
that
on
your
own.
That's
not
something
that
I
can
advise
you
of,
but
I.
It
is
legal
nuance
there
and
I.
Think
a
lawyer
is
beneficial
in
that
and
understanding
that,
because
that
is
much
longer
than
two
hour
three-hour
conversation
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
we
spent
days
talking
about
this
very
issue.
Okay,.
J
My
next
comment
or
question,
given
the
fact
that
some
of
us
were
apparently
there
were
four
meetings
ahead
of
time,
has
been
stated
earlier,
and
a
number
of
us
who
live
in
proximity
only
received
notice
of
this
adjustment.
Hearing
and
I
believe
it
was
January
27th
for
today
not
a
lot
of
time.
So
also
given
my
understanding
from
being
at
this
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting
today
that
you
do
have
some
judicial
review.
J
A
R
R
R
The
regulation
for
our
to
zoning
with
city
sewer
and
water
is
a
10-foot
setback,
so
the
applicant
is
asking
to
move
the
buildings
from
10
feet
back
of
the
right
away
boundary
to
the
boundary
itself.
If
my
math
is
correct,
they
have
well
their
site
plan,
describes
a
45
foot
right-of-way
and
a
20
foot
wide
road
with
valley
curbing
so
45
feet.
A
R
Assuming
the
road
is
in
the
center
of
the
right
away,
and
there
are
buildings
on
either
side
of
the
road,
each
driveway
will
be
11
and
a
half
feet
long,
which
is
insufficient
to
part.
Almost
all
Buncombe
County
licensed
vehicles,
the
exception
being
a
smart
car,
I,
don't
know
half
feet
doesn't
cover
my
15
foot
Subaru
or
any
persons
f-150
pickup
truck.
So
just
imagine
when
they
pull
out
of
their
garage
and
they
want
to
close
the
garage
door.
The
vehicle
will
be
on
the
roadway
before
they
can
close
the
garage.
R
F
S
S
Do
I'm
also
not
here
to
talk
about
standing,
but
I
am
here
to
talk
about
traffic
I,
don't
know
if
you
need
to
qualify
me
as
an
expert
but
I'm
a
39
year
professional
engineer
trained
in
traffic
and
transportation.
I
was
in
charge
of
a
major
South
Florida
County
Palm
Beach
County
for
25
years
as
County
engineer,
I
had
the
responsibility
of
the
Traffic
Division,
the
land
development
division,
the
road
building
division,
all
under
my
department
about
450
people.
S
We
I,
probably
personally
reviewed
more
than
3,000
zoning
applications
from
the
standpoint
of
these
kinds
of
conditions
that
you
guys
are
having
to
deal
with
and
that
your
Zoning
Administrator
puts
forth
and
so
forth.
I
am
a
former
president
of
the
National
Association
of
County
engineer's
at
the
national
level,
so
I
do
have
a
little
bit
of
Transportation
traffic
background.
Do.
A
F
A
A
Mr.
Freeman
I
didn't
invite
any
insight
you
have
I,
don't
think
that
he
can
speak
to
North
Carolina
standards,
but
as
to
engineering
matters
at
large,
which
is
what
I
understand
he's
he
may
attest
to
we're,
not
talking
about
any
specific
regulations,
thus
far
I,
don't
think
he's
put
himself
in
a
spot
where
we're
crossing
into
that
territory,
but
I
could
be
wrong.
Just.
F
D
S
Traffic
study,
as
far
as
the
impact
of
the
half-day
and
my
personal
knowledge,
as
far
as
that
in
communication,
I've
had
with
the
d-o-t
I'm,
going
to
respectfully
request
that
the
board
consider
three
particular
conditions
be
applied
to
the
project.
Two
of
them
are
traffic.
One
is
not
they're
more
general.
You
want
me
to
read
the
conditions,
so
you
understand
what
I'm
really
asking
for
as
far
as
the
conditions
not.
A
At
this
time,
but
only
because
we
have
a
preliminary
issue,
we
need
to
decide
first,
the
does
anybody
have
any
preference
on
whether
we
allow
the
research
to
go,
take
place
first
or
hear
it
and
then,
after
the
fact,
give
Brandon
some
time
to
research.
It
I'm
flexible,
either
way
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
this
right.
E
A
Find
out
and
I'm
gonna
put
this
caveat
on
it
for
the
purpose
of
finding
out
what
he's
going
to
say
and
whether
or
not
it's
actually
objectionable
while
we're
waiting
on
mr.
Freeman,
with
the
understanding
that,
if
I
suggest
we
disregard
the
testimony,
it's
an
entirety
should
legal
find
a
reason
to
that.
We
all
agree
to
do
that
and
get
to
Nathan
any
objection
that
please.
S
S
The
other
thing
that
people
talked
about
was
the
effect
of
the
development
on
the
standing
as
far
as
trees,
etc.
In
the
condition
I
would
recommend
would
be
something
to
the
order.
A
developer
shall
not
disturb
or
remove
trees,
except
is
required
to
construct
roads,
buildings,
utilities
and
amenities.
In
other
words,
you
show
the
footprint
to
what
you're
gonna
be
affecting,
so
we're
just
asking
a
condition
be
placed
to
say:
do
not
go
outside
that
and
knock
trees
down
or
take
underbrush
down,
etc.
So
and
finally,.
S
Is
developers
shall
provide-
and
this
is
important,
so
you
get
an
idea-
you've
heard
the
mountains
that
to
the
south
of
the
development,
the
road
is
higher,
overlook
road.
It
goes
down
as
you
get
to
the
development
entrance,
so
traffic
is
faster
than
the
typical
speeds
and
you
can
get
that
from
any
mall.
The
people
that
are
here
the
drive
overlook
regularly.
So
just
keep
that
in
mind.
S
So
from
the
standpoint,
people
come
around
and
they're
starting
to
build
up
speed
as
they're
heading
down
to
where
the
new
entrance
will
be
at
the
north
end
of
the
property
and
the
condition
I
would
recommend
would
be
developer
shop
value
adequate
south
this
site,
a
distance
along
overlook
Road
within
the
project
boundaries
to
address
vehicles,
traveling
northbound,
with
the
calculation
using
the
85th
percentile
speed
and
for
mister
the
traffic
engineer.
That's
a
typical
way
of
determining
what
the
majority
of
the
the
cars
are
doing.
S
That's
usually
how
speed
limits
are
set
and
using
the
ncpo
T
requirements
for
southbound
traffic
traffic
is
gone
going
up
here
at
that
point,
so
it's
a
great
differential
between
southbound
and
northbound
traffic.
Adequate
sight,
distance
shall
not
mean
complete
vegetation
removal.
So
those
are
my
three
things:
the
sight
distance
issue
and
the
street
lighting
for
traffic
safety
and
the
middle
one
simply
for
what
the
developers
representative,
as
far
as
you're
moving
trees.
S
A
So
while
our
attorney
is
looking
into
this
matter,
I
will
say
the
salience
II
to
me
of
whether
or
not
you
are
licensed
in
North
Carolina
is
based
on
whether
or
not
you
are
interpreting
North
Carolina
standards.
The
test.
The
reason
that
I
wanted
to
have
kind
of
a
pre
hearing
hearing
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
you
were
going
to
speak
to
North
Carolina
standards
as
opposed
to
generic
recommendations.
I
did
not
hear
anything
that
was
not
a
generic
recommendation.
A
I,
don't
think
that
you're
saying
anything,
that's
specific
to
North
Carolina
as
much
as
offering
an
opinion
as
to
your
experience
as
an
engineer,
dictating
recommendations
that
you
think
are
appropriate
based
on
this.
So
it's
a
hybrid
kind
of
testimony
here
does
that
change
the
nature
of
your
objection
at
all.
Mr.
Allen.
F
S
S
Okay,
now
can
I
tell
you
my
story
on
the
mean
I
know.
I
know,
you've
been
here:
I'll
have
a
long
day,
but
it'll
be
fast.
Hap
I've
been
communicating
with
NCDOT
since
they
control
the
signal.
Timing
at
Overlook
in
Hendersonville
I
was
going
there
at
3:30
in
the
afternoon
to
pick
our
granddaughter
up
from
daycare
whatever
and
an
incredible
back
up
on,
overlook
trying
to
get
out
onto
Hendersonville.
So
I
started
communicating
just
how
long
I
was
waiting,
because
when
I
get
to
Hendersonville
Road,
there
was
no
backup
on
Hendersonville.
S
So
it
seemed
pretty
easy
for
a
traffic
engineer
to
say,
change
a
single
time,
get
more
time
green
time
to
overlook
and
take
it
away
from
Hendersonville
d-o-t
Stonewall,
so
I
kept
beating
them
up
and
said
you
know
here
each
day,
I'd
say
seven
minute:
delay
eight
and
a
half
minute
delay
six
minute
delay.
So
finally,
they
said
we'll
go,
take
a
look
at
it.
So
I
saw
somebody
standing.
The
traffic
signal
box
one
day
came
a
big
thumbs
up
and
honk
the
horn
as
I
went
by.
S
Obviously
they
were
out
there
to
try
and
do
something
next
day
came
by
no
delay
zebra
and
the
guy
standing
on
the
road
and
he's
looking,
you
know
and
I,
so
I
pull
in
a
parking
lot.
Where
he's
close
to
where
he's
standing,
I
came
in
and
I
said,
what
did
you
do
to
make
all
the
cars
go
away?
He
said,
I
didn't
think
I
did
that
much,
but
this
is
amazing.
This
is
a
great
change.
I'm
glad
we're
gonna,
make
it
I
said,
wait
a
minute.
I
said:
isn't
this
a
half-day?
S
He
said?
Oh
no
is
it
it
turns
out.
It
was
so
there
is
a
dramatic
difference
at
that
time
of
day
on
overlook
road
as
far
as
traffic
getting
on
to
Hendersonville,
so,
unfortunately,
I'm
disappointed
that
the
the
numbers
in
the
traffic
study
didn't
reflect
a
tip
one
more
typical
day,
but
it's
also
in
the
in
the
peak
month.
Being
October
is
one
of
the
highest
traffic
months
as
well,
and
you
know
my
understanding
of
how
the
traffic
studies
are
done
and
how
do
T
looks
at
it
and
how
you
guys,
okay,
work.
S
Was
talked
about
the
de
minimis
impact
of
this
projects,
traffic,
it
is
de
minimis
because
it's
less
than
one
percent
and
that's
a
standard
that
we
understand
and
use.
So,
if
anything,
that
the
additional
traffic
generated
by
the
schools,
as
was
tracked,
I
talked
about
earlier,
would
just
mean
the
de
minimus
gets
even
smaller,
so
you'd
have
more
background
more
existing
as
compared
to
the
traffic
associated
with
this
particular
project.
S
A
A
A
D
A
A
T
A
V
V
I
N
A
U
U
U
U
This
project
is
in
within
a
stone's
throw
of
my
house
so
with
the
additional
building
there
and
the
traffic
on
either
side.
If
it
get
bottleneck,
traffic
from
this
community
and
other
parts
will
most
likely
go
through
West
Ridge
Drive
to
ease
there,
but
just
expediate.
There
drive
objectively
grounds.
U
A
U
It
seems
like
it
needs
a
professional
opinion,
a
professional
presentation
and
I'm
not
qualified
for
that.
Nor
I've
had
time
to
find
somebody
that
is
qualified
for
that
or
us,
as
a
collective,
have
had
that
opportunity
to
gather
those
people
to
do
their
studies
and
represent
us
in
a
different
opinion,
a
different
opinion
that
these
people
are
presenting
their
they're,
showing
one
side
where
it
could
be
multiple
views
on
this.
To
give
you
a
more
accurate
depiction
of
what
is
going
on.
A
W
To
be
honest,
George
I
may
need
your
help.
The
initial
neighborhood
meetings
were
organized
by
the
land
seller,
but
there
were
representatives
of
oak
forest,
Blake,
mountain
Biltmore,
Park
crew
field,
I'm,
not
sure
who
else
I
know.
Interestingly,
I
know
their
names,
but
not
necessarily
what
neighborhood
they
represented
and.
H
W
W
They
indicated
that
it
was
meeting
that
they
thought
was
being
organized
by
they
said.
Mrs.
rose,
I,
guess
maybe
more
accurately,
mrs.
Phares
through
through
those
folks
offered
to
attend
that
meeting
which
which
they
declined,
which
is
which
is
fine
and
but
also
made
sure
that
they
knew
they
were
invited
to
our
meeting
on
the
on
the
4th.
F
I
have
no
further
questions
for
mr.
deloach.
Any
any
questions
from
the
board.
I
didn't
want
to
have
our
engineer
answer
or
address
an
issue
that
came
up
with
two
different
folks,
and
that
is
the
issue
of
the
zero
zero
front
setback
and
just
to
make
sure
it's
that
just
make
it
clear.
It's
zero
front
setback,
not
all
around
mark.
Can
you
explain
why
we
have
shown
that,
and
while
we've
implemented
that
in
this
site
plan
and
what
the
benefits
are
yeah.
X
And
really
it
came
as
much
from
the
initial
meeting,
with
the
the
neighborhood
meeting
with
various
neighborhoods
represented
there
that
they
really
wanted
to
preserve
the
trees.
I
think
there.
Everybody
was
scared
that
we
were
going
to
come
in
and
just
clear-cut,
the
entire
20
some
acres
and
put
whatever
town
homes
or
whatever
it
was
on
it.
I
assured
them.
X
We
would
make
every
effort
to
minimize
the
amount
of
tree,
clearing
and
grading
that
had
to
happen
on
the
property
and
to
do
that
again,
you
know
the
there's
a
corridor
that
has
to
be
cleared
cleared
of
trees
and
graded.
The
corridor
consists
at
the
back
of
the
uphill
houses,
the
road
and
the
front
of
the
downhill
houses
right.
X
It's
roughly
I,
don't
remember
the
exact
number
it's
about
150
feet
again.
If
you
adhere
the
20
foot,
setbacks
you're
going
to
add
not
only
the
40
feet
for
the
setbacks,
but
also
additional
acreage
to
tie
the
slopes
in
because
again,
when
you're
pushing
the
buildings
further
into
the
uphill
slope
that
you
know
you're
having
to
tie
the
grading
in
to
a
higher
elevation.
Therefore,
there's
much
more
significant
grading
on
the
mountainside
to
tie
that
sloped
in
same
thing
on
the
downhill
slope,
you
push
the
building
out
another
20
feet.
X
If
we
have
to
adhere
to
the
20
foot
setback,
there
would
be
significantly
more
disturbed
acreage
on
the
project.
The
preliminary
Road
control
plan
and
the
plan
shows
about
12
acres
of
disturbance.
Overall
grading
disturbance
out
of
the
21
acres
that
George
is
developing
on.
That
would
be
significantly
increased
to
adhere
to
the
20
foot
setback.
So
that
was
the
purpose.
F
W
Well,
first,
not
to
sound
overly
concerned
with
the
economics
of
the
deal,
but
there's
no
motivation
for
us
to
cut
down
a
tree
that
we
don't
have
to.
In
fact
it
costs
money
to
cut
down
trees
but,
but,
more
importantly,
much
much
more
importantly,
as
I've
stated,
this
could
be
a
rental
community
and
we're
going
to
be
competing
at
the
very
highest
end
of
the
market
and
our
prospective
residents
will
have
the
the
option
of
going
to
a
more
traditional
apartment
community,
where
they
literally
have
10,000
square
foot
of
amenities.
W
They'll
have
fitness,
centers
and
theaters
and
pools
and
club
rooms.
We're
not
going
to
have
any
of
that.
Our
amenity
is
the
trees
our
amenity
is
to
site.
We
are,
we
are.
We
will
deliberately
be
targeting
someone
who
doesn't
want
that
other
kind
of
experience
and
so
to
to
needlessly
cut
down
trees
it
just
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
for
many
many
perspective
that
we
have.
F
H
O
F
And
we
have
heard
about
this
half-day
school
issue
and
and
and
considered
at
least
several
folks
have
considered
what
that
would
do
to
the
numbers.
We
heard
mr.
Webb's
testimony
most
recently
that
the
impact
would
obviously
be
that
that
number
would
go
down
in
terms
of
this
proposed
development
impact
on
that
intersection.
Do
you
agree
with
that
answer?
F
O
F
M
Q
One
clarification
and
Mark
respectfully
that
the
setback
issue
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
in
our
to
with
a
well
and
septic
project
the
front
yard
setback
is
20
feet
when
a
project
is
in
Water
and
Sewer.
The
developer
has
the
option
that
goes
closest
ten
feet.
I,
don't
think
it
inside
changes.
The
fundamental
point
mr.
Brooks
is
trying
to
make,
but
I
want
to
clarify
that
dimensional
requirement.
A
T
I'm
Karen,
Farris
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
since
I
was
mentioned
just
now
by
the
applicants
attorney
or
the
applicant
that
I'd
like
to
just
clarify
why
I
was
brought
into
that.
I
did
have
a
community
meeting
for
$10
fee
at
South,
Buncombe
library,
and
it
was
advertised
with
signs
for
January
28th
from
6
to
8,
and
no
person
was
barred
or
excluded
or
not
invited.
Thank
you
thank.
A
F
One
of
the
things
that
we
made
apparent
to
County
staff
and
in
my
introductory
remarks
and
remarks
from
mr.
gloats
throughout
this
and
even
in
this
process,
is
a
willingness
to
hear
all
of
these
ideas
get
all
the
input
from
folks.
The
fact
that
there
are
60
people
at
our
last
neighbor
moon
meeting
and
far
fewer
here
and
really
the
folks
that
we
dealt
with
most
throughout
this
process
are
not
here,
says
a
lot
about
this
developer
in
this
project.
F
It
means
that
they
listened
early,
they
listened
often,
and
they
implemented
those
things
that
the
neighbors
most
wanted
to
see
and
that
have
been
talked
about
both
neighbor
level
and
its
staff
level.
In
terms
of
what's
been
shown
through
our
experts
and
through
our
evidence
that
we
presented
both
with
our
application,
with
the
resumes
of
our
experts
with
the
Supplemental
letter
that
mr.
Brooks
handed
up
really
matches
up
well
with
what
your
your
County
staff
has
done.
F
Both
at
planning
staff
and
attorney
level
and
I
would
think
both
those
departments
for
what
they
do
in
this
process,
both
generally
and
specifically,
to
this
project.
It
does
make
it
easier
to
have
a
clear
record
and
we've
set
up
our
outline
really
based
off
of
the
grid
that
they've
come
up
with.
It's
super
useful
and
that's
what
I'm
gonna
go
through
here
to
make
sure
that
we
had
all
those
check
marks
so
that
the
findings
of
fact
for
the
CU
p
and
the
PUD
can
be
established
and
I
was
go
down
the
applicant
here.
F
What
we
put
in
what
the
findings
effect
are
the
first
under
the
CEP
findings
of
fact,
it's
a
proposed
help
and
I
adversely
affect
the
health
or
safety
of
persons
residing
or
working
in
the
neighborhood
of
the
proposed
use.
We
have
our
applicant
narrative
that
the
staff
has
put
out.
That's
in
our
application.
Staff
has
had
no
concerns
and
in
terms
of
what
we
put
in
as
our
testimony,
we've
shown
that
we're
at
25
percent
of
what
they
allowed
density
would
be.
F
We
have
compliance
with
all
ordinances,
we've
added
conditions
suggested
by
staff
regarding
erosion,
control,
stormwater
and
stormwater
management.
The
second
one
is
the
proposed
use
will
not
be
detrimental
to
public
welfare.
I
won't
read
them
all
as
kind
of
get
us
on
the
numbers
and
again,
staff
has
no
concerns
after
reviewing
the
application,
what
we
put
there
and
then
we've
come
through
and
again
talked
about
the
modest
density.
We've
talked
about
ingress
and
we've
had
our
road
layout
and
now
analyzed
again
subject
to
stormwater
management,
water
quality
and
compliance
with
all
ordinances.
F
The
adverse
effects
is
the
next
condition
or
the
next
finding
of
fact,
that's
number
three
again
staff
with
no
concerns
with
with
what
we
have
in
our
application.
What
we've
shown
the
density
and
residential
use
are
appropriate.
The
road
design
is
appropriate,
there's
no
street
lighting,
no
trash
collection.
All
those
things
are
satisfied,
moving
on
to
number
four
and
that's
a
satisfactory
ingress
and
egress.
That's
why
we
have
a
traffic
engineers
are
expert
on
that
and
we
submit
our
traffic
impact
analysis
and
his
testimony
in
support
of
that
as
it
relates
to
emergency
services.
F
The
farm
marshal
has
already
weighed
in
and
farmer
shal
has
no
concerns.
The
next
one
is
provision
for
off
street
parking.
We
do
have
sufficient
parking,
provided.
Staff
agrees
with
that
and
we've
had
no
modifications
to
that
requested
adequate
proper
utilities.
We
have
provided
these
and
I
believe
they're
part
of
the
application,
but
the
water
sewer
commitment
left
from
MSD.
If
we
haven't
already
entered
into
evidence,
we
would
like
to
enter
that
is
into
evidence
as
far
as
our
application.
F
Number
seven
is
the
provision
of
buffering,
if
deemed
necessary
here,
because
the
residential
nature
of
the
project
there's
no
buffering
required,
but
you
can
see
from
the
layout
of
our
design.
We
have
the
cushion
of
the
existing
single-family
residential
you've
heard
mr.
Deloatch
talk
about
minimizing
grading,
there's
no
clear
cutting
grading,
there's
no
masquerading.
In
fact,
he's
talked
about
talked
about
the
trees
being
amenity
to
the
project.
I
I
think
that's
astounding
for
a
developer
to
acknowledge
that
that
can
and
should
be
the
case
and
kudos
to
mr.
dillos.
For
that.
F
Number
eight
relates
to
signs
and
exterior
lighting.
There
are
no
street
lights
proposed.
We
will
meet
any
of
those
requirements
that
are
in
the
county,
playgrounds
and
open
spaces
and
yards
it's
the
residential
nature.
The
project
staff
has
marked
compliant
on
that
number.
10
is
buildings
and
structures
with
a
reference
to
location,
size
and
use
against
staff
with
no
concerns.
F
We've
submitted
our
sheets
and
our
design
plans
and
going
through
preliminary
review
with
county
staff
regarding
our
proposed
plans
and
staff
has
no
concerns
there
for
foresee
regarding
a
required
distance
between
buildings
and
then
the
next
one
is
building
envelope.
Staff
has
Marc
compliance
and
that's
based
off
of
our
site
plan
submission.
F
Elevens
the
hours
of
operation
again
not
applicable
because
of
residential,
that's
staffs
piece
there
on
the
PUD.
These
are
a
little
bit
quicker
one
to
ownership
and
control,
that's
compliant
as
verified
through
the
application
process.
To
is
the
density
requirements
again,
I've
already
gone
over
that
reasonable
density
and
the
25
percent
of
the
allowable
density
in
the
zoning
district
3
is
the
land
uses
and
we've
described
those
staff
has
deemed
those
compliant.
F
F
Will
conclude
our
presentation
and
we're
open
the
board
up
to
any
questions
you
have
of
me
or
the
applicant
or
either
of
our
experts?
We've
worked
long
and
hard
on
this
for
months,
we've
had
as
much
conversation
as
possibly
could
with
all
neighbors
involved.
We've
had
as
much
conversation
with
can
with
your
professional
staff
and
I've
implemented
all
those
things
that
we
thought
we
could
for
a
reasonable
and
professional
and
responsible
development.
We
would
ask
for
your
vote
of
approval
for
our
CU
p
and
our
beauty
negative.
A
I
This
looks
to
be
as
good
as
we
may
get.
I
do
have
some
some
issues
with
the
traffic
study.
It's
disconcerting
that
the
they've
chosen
wasn't
necessarily
appropriate
and
it
kind
of
leaves
the
situation
where
some
people
might
not
think
it
legitimate
and
that's
unfortunate
based
on
that.
It
wouldn't
break
my
heart
if
there
was
a
continuance.
But
apart
from
that.
E
I'm,
very
supportive
of
the
plan.
I,
don't
have
any
issues
with
the
drainage
and
the
setbacks
uh-huh.
This
is
going
to
be
built
out.
One
way,
the
other
but
I
I'm
I'm,
on
shaky
ground.
With
this
traffic
study
and
with
this
board
has
found
that
more
information
is
better
than
less.
We
need
additional
daylight
on
the
entire
complex
issue
and
here's
why
this
complex
are
my
son's
tutor
lived
on
that
road
I'm
very
familiar
with
it
and
I
have
to
go
through
their
own
business,
to
Biltmore,
Park,
Town,
Square
and
back
and
forth
through
there.
E
That
may
be
the
most
complex
road
and
traffic
and
intersection
issue
that
we
have
in
the
entire
county
and
I
I'm
with
Tom
I
there's
some
somehow
I
came
up
with
a
lack
of
faith
when
we
had
the
wrong
day
on
there
and
we
need
to
take
another
a
little
more
information
on
the
traffic
study
and
so
I'm
I'm.
All
I
can't
support
it.
It
doesn't
doesn't
meet
conditional
use
standards,
a
B
and
D
at
this
time.
E
I
can
support,
but
as
I
say,
this
is
a
great
development
that
part
that's
just
in
there
that
wasn't
that's
really
good,
so
I'm,
very
supportive
or
that
I
need
more
daylight.
All
the
complex
traffic
issues.
I
know
they
beat
this
traffic
engineers.
Probably
a
nice
person
probably
does
good
work,
but
I
need
more
information.
N
N
O
G
So
when
you
submit
this
to
do
two
NCDOT
from
just
the
process
that
happens
if
they
think
what
what
happens,
if
they
think
your
numbers
are
not
correct
or
will
they
do
their
own
study,
do
you
see
what
I'm
saying
I
mean
it's
you
don't
you're,
not
just
gonna
submit
it
and
they
do
and
they
just
rubber-stamp
your
numbers,
or
do
they
go
back
and
look
at
different
days
or
do
they
look
at
numbers?
Do
you
see
what
I'm
saying
I
don't
to.
E
Because
I've
been
on
the
board
for
some
time,
we
have
never
had
do
t
send
anything
back
saying.
No.
This
is
not
right.
You
got
to
correct
this,
so
whatever
we
approve
here
of
traffic
nature,
it's
what
we
never
had
it
sent
back
here,
no
I,
don't
know
if
they've
made
collections
but
I've
seen
what
we've
discussed
and
with
it
with
the
thought
that
no
no
there's
any
kind
of
problem,
our
trustee.
What
do
t
they'll
fix
it?
Well,
it
came.
Q
Q
Well,
there's
a
whole
series
of
conversations
that
happened
beforehand,
but
officially,
when
you
get
into
the
process
they'll,
do
an
initial
review
for
completeness
they'll
do
a
second-tier
as
a
review
for
correct
methodology,
and
then
the
third
tier
review
is
they're,
actually
reviewing
the
data
and
the
recommendations
of
the
consulting
engineer
and
determining
whether
they
concur
with
those
or
whether
they
want
something
changed
and
they
the
DoD
can
send
that
back.
They
can
reject
it,
they
usually
don't,
but
they
can
send
it
back
with.
Q
Will
you
please
look
at
this
additional
variable
or
we're
not
sure
we
agree
with
some
particular
set
of
variables
that
you
apply
it
in
this
particular
area
of
the
study,
but
it's
usually
more
of
a
back
and
forth
between
the
consultant
and
the
d-o-t.
But
ultimately
they
deity
will
have
to
decide
whether
they,
whether
they're,
whether
they
agree
with
it
or
not,
and
if
they
do
agree
with
it,
they
they
may
impose
certain
conditions
on
the
project
and
then
the
developer
that
has
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
accept
those
conditions
or
not.
Q
And
if
they
don't,
then
it's
back
to
the
drawing
board
in
some
way
shape
or
form.
That
could
mean
scaling
back
the
project.
It
could
mean
moving
an
intersection.
It
could
mean
some
any
number
of
mitigations
to
it.
You
have
to
in
terms
of
how
the
board's
decision-making
ties
into
that
there
is
no
set
policy
as
to
in
the
zoning
ordinance
as
to
whether
you
make
a
decision
in
any
of
those
steps
in
the
d-o-t
review
process,
you're
not
required
to
wait
for
the
d-o-t
you're.
Q
Also,
you
are
enabled
to
wait
for
the
d-o-t
and,
and
so
the
board,
at
my
suggestion
and
I
would
brand
in
a
chime
in
on
this
would
be.
You
have
to
make
a
case-by-case
decision
as
to
whether
you're
willing
to
approve
a
project
before
or
after
dat
makes
its
final
response
to
any
given
traffic
study
our
historically
our
practice
has
generally
been
in
the
past
that
we
we
just
kind
of
conditioned
approval
own
compliance
with
any
requirements
of
G
ot.
We've
had
a
shift
in
that
in
the
last
couple
of
months.
Q
Let
me
say
that
if
we
would
tell
you
if
we're
getting
feedback
from
duty
that
makes
us
concerned
about
the
timing
of
a
decision,
we
would
tell
you
that
we've
never
had
that
happen.
So
the
bottom
line,
is
you
have
a
broad
discretion
as
a
board
to
make
a
decision
based
on
the
data
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
or
don't
have
in
front
of
you
and
Brandon.
You
correct
me:
if
I
gotta
do
that
wrong,
he's
got
a
disagreeably
I,
think
I.
D
D
You
just
have
to
apply
the
ordinance
to
the
case,
that's
in
front
of
you
and
we
really
can't
look
at
how
other
cases
were
handled
or
how
they
might
be
handled
in
the
future
or
how
you
might
want
to
amend
the
ordinance
or
how
the
ordinance
could
be
amended
going
into
the
future
I
think
today,
you
have
to
look
at
the
very
specific
things
you
know
was
the
requirement
to
have
a
traffic
study
submitted.
Was
that
met
and
has
the
applicant
carried
their
burden
of
and
was
was?
D
G
F
And
now
it's
going
to
Thank
You
counselor,
because
what
I
was
gonna
say:
there's
been
zero.
Contrary
evidence,
we've
met,
that's
why
I
went
with
her
that
painstaking
piece
of
checking
off
all
those
marks
we've
been
through
that
entire
checklist
of
evidence
that
we're
supposed
to
offer
and
done
it
with
expert
testimony,
and
we
presented
our
primary
our
prima
facie
case,
there's
been
no
contra
evidence
specifically
there's
been
new
contra
evidence
regarding
traffic.
F
We've
gone
even
beyond
that
and
said
that
we
would
update
that,
and
then
we
have
two
different
engineers,
one
from
Florida,
one
from
North
Carolina,
saying
that,
of
course,
that
number
is
only
going
to
get
better
in
terms
of
impact
on
overlook
road,
because
our
number
on
PM
peak
hours
is
48.
That's
in
our
traffic
analysis.
That's
based
on
people
that
are
going
to
go
into
this
proposed
development.
That
number
is
not
going
to
change.
The
only
number
that's
going
to
change
is
that
denominator
number
and
that
number
is
likely
to
get
bigger.
A
The
issue
that
I'm,
having
and
I'd,
have
to
ask
mr.
Freeman
on
this,
because
I
board
procedure
and
I
need
to
make
sure
we
do
this
correctly.
I
got
the
impression
from
about
half
the
board.
That's
gonna
go
one
way,
the
other
half
it's
going
another
way.
Do
we
even
have
the
option
to
hear
additional
evidence
at
this
point
since
we
closed
the
public
phase
of
the
hearing,
if
you
set
this
out-
and
we
said
like
it,
we
need
more
information.
How
what
would
be
the
mechanism
for
getting
that?
D
D
If
the
hearing
were
officially
closed
and
I
haven't
heard
any
new
testimony
thing
I've
heard
has
been
redundant,
you
know-
and
maybe
some
some
some
staff
analysis
that
I
think
was
was
was
not
relevant
to
this
hearing.
So
I
don't
see
a
problem
thus
far
with
what
I've
heard,
but
assuming
that
the
hearing
was
closed,
I
imagine
after
the
applicant
gave
their
final
closing
statement.
So,
assuming
that
the
public
hearing
was
closed,
then
I
do
not
think
you
could
hear
any
new
evidence
and
any
evidence
that
has
come
in
I.
D
Don't
think
really
should
be
considered.
I,
don't
think
you
could
hear
new
evidence
until
this
was
properly
riad,
vert
eyes.
The
public
policy
behind
that
is
that
someone
could
have
been
sitting
in
the
audience
and
heard
close
to
the
public
hearing
and
left.
And
then,
if
it's
opened
up
here
without
it
being
riad
vert
eyes,
then
they
wouldn't
have
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
participate
in
something
that
might
impact
them.
A
So
reason
I
asked
that
question
is
because
I
did
see.
Someone
leave
after
I
said
that
I
don't
want
to
prejudice
them.
I
do
want
everybody
here
to
know
that
if
you
did
that,
that
would
be
something
that
we'd
have
to
riad
vert
eyes,
because
I
have
no
intention
of
doing
anything
after
somebody
leaves
the
room
who
was
who
bothered
to
come
here
and
be
here
for
hours
on
end.
So.
A
E
Well,
my
life
thing
again
I.
This
is
the
best
best.
One
we've
seen
that
this
is
a
good
design,
but
I
lost
faith.
I
have
to
say
that
the
traffic
studies
that
we
get
first
of
all
this
is
an
arcane
business.
We
get
lots
of
jargon,
we
it's
a
blizzard
of
technical
flow
measurements
and
for
me
to
feel
fully
confident
of
that
I
have
to
have.
E
It
has
to
be
bulletproof
and
then
that
one
wasn't
and
so
therefore,
on
the
conditional
use
standards
of
a
B
and
D
and
unless
that's,
unless
all
of
that
is
confirmed
to
me,
I
can't
I
can't
agree
that,
in
other
words,
a
says
that
the
condition
will
not
adversely
affect
health
or
safety,
then
will
not
be
detrimental
to
public
welfare,
satisfactory
and
get
egressive,
Rose
structures
thereon
and
reference
to
automotive
and
pedestrian
safety.
Right,
no
I'm
not
confirmed
on
that.
E
A
Brendan
is
there
any
legal
wisdom
that
you
can
offer
us
with
respect
to
particularly
7
a
section
d,
the
satisfactory
ingress
and
egress.
The
property
element
of
that
would
be
curious
if
that's
an
issue
that
we've
broached
previously
in
depth
and
case
law
wise
or
if
this
really
is
a
discretionary
call
based
on
our
satisfaction.
N
N
Q
N
I
D
Chair
I
think
there
are
two
things
we
could
clear
up
here.
There
seem
to
be
two
issues
that
are
being
merged
together.
The
one
issue
is
the
traffic
study
and
there
is
a
requirement
that
applicants
submit
a
traffic
study
for
the
separate
issue
is
to
look
at
certain
impacts
of
the
property,
and
one
of
them
does
have
to
do
with
traffic.
So
this
board
sort
of
has
two
separate
things
to
look
at
and
really
the
the
traffic
study
is
probably
something
that's
part
of
the
application.
D
It's
something
that
says
is
this
application
ready
for
you
to
go
forward
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment?
If
you
have
a
large
product
project
that
requires
a
traffic
study
and
you
submit
an
application
to
the
Planning,
Department
and
say
I'm
ready
to
have
this
go
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
If
it's
missing
a
traffic
study,
the
Planning
Department
is
going
to
tell
you.
This
is
an
incomplete
study
and
it
can't
go
forward
or
it's
an
incomplete
application
and
it
can't
go
forward.
Is
that
correct.
D
D
I
think
that's
a
separate
question
than
has
the
applicant
met
its
burden
when
you
look
at
whether
the
applicant
has
met
I
think
you
have
to
look
not
only
at
the
how
relevant
the
traffic
study
is
in
that
information,
but
also
to
the
testimony
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant
and
any
rebuttal
testimony
that
was
competent.
If
we're
dealing
with
traffic,
it
would
have
to
be
expert
testimony
that
came
into
play
today.
These.
A
A
The
first
is
being
the
legal
requirement
that
you
submit
one:
that's
not
staff
vouching
for
legitimacy
of
it
or
having
done
their
own
confirmation
of
the
traffic
study,
so
people
could,
in
theory,
make
their
own
discretionary
call
as
to
whether
or
not
d
has
been
satisfied
now,
I
think
what
counsel
is
arguing
for
the
applicant
is
that
there
was
no
evidence
to
contradict
his
assertions.
His
experts
assertions
that
that
it
is
satisfactory
that
presumptively.
That
is
something
we
should
accept,
but
I
do
think
that
there's
a
different
discussion
we
had
about
weight
versus
requirement
right.
A
You
can
always
make
a
determination
about
the
weight.
You
give
certain
evidence
as
opposed
to
proceed
really
just
not
submitting
one
which
would
be
kind
of
like
a
fatal
error
for
them.
They
could
not
proceed
to
this
stage
if
they
hadn't
submitted
the
traffic
study,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
Josh
and
Haley
are
vouching
for
everything
in
it.
D
I
think
so,
and
to
both
of
those
questions
to
have
an
answer
to
them,
I
think
we
would
have
to
have
an
expert
tell
us.
So
if
there
was
an
expert
here
rebutting
this
and
saying
no,
this
would
impact
traffic.
Then
I
think
the
board
is
in
a
different
position.
If
there
was
an
expert
saying
the
fact
that
this
traffic
study
happened
on
an
early
release
day,
is
it
should
impact
the
the
outcome
of
this
case?
I
Mr.
chair,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
to
this
board,
including
the
following,
exhibits
the
petitioners
application
the
submitted
development
plan,
the
GIS
maps,
the
staff
report
in
the
findings
of
fact,
worksheet
testimony
presented
at
this
hearing
I
moved
this
board,
adopt
the
following
findings
of
fact:
one
through
six,
seven,
a
inclusive,
have.
I
A
A
I
A
G
G
N
U
V
E
N
N
Q
R
E
Q
Q
Q
X
Q
Summary
no
problem:
the
subject:
property
is
85:
pound,
piney,
Mountain
Drive.
The
zoning
on
the
property
is
our
two
residential,
a
portion
of
the
property,
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen,
the
hatch
gray
area-
that's
here.
If
you
can
see
my
cursor
moving,
that
is
protected
mountain
ridge,
which
is
a
higher
regulatory
set
of
more
stringent
rules
for
development.
The
project
area
for
the
actual
development
is
not
in
the
protected
mountain
ridge,
so
there
on
the
prop.
Those
rules
apply
to
the
property,
but
not
this
particular
project.
Q
Q
A
couple
of
just
this
is
this:
project
has
been
through
the
county's
review
process
for
a
plan
unit
development
I
believe
technically,
it's
the
fourth
time
around
the
first
time
by
a
completely
different
property
owner
that
that
application
died
on
the
vine
and
you
just
expire
without
being
ever
being
constructed.
There
were
two
subsequent
applications:
the
the
under
the
current
ownership,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
in
2016,
this
project
was
approved
with
two
hundred
and
thirty
two
apartment
units
in
2019.
Q
The
applicant
came
back
and
actually
reduced
the
total
number
of
apartment
units
to
two
hundred
units.
This
current
application
is
to
bump
the
allowable
units
back
up
to
two
hundred
and
twenty.
So
not
all
the
way
back
up
to
two
thirty
two,
it's
important
to
note
on
this
particular
application
that
the
density,
so
the
the
proposed
density,
is
less
than
the
original
approval
greater
than
the
current
approval
about
twenty
units.
Q
Those
twenty
units
are
being
created
within
the
existing
currently
approved
footprint
for
the
project,
so
the
building
mass
high
geometric
dimensions
are
not
changing
in
any
way
shape
or
form
location.
No
change,
they're,
just
rearranging
the
floor
plan
of
the
units
in
such
a
way
that
they
can
pick
up
some
of
those
units
that
they'd
originally
you
know
through
the
prior
process
done
away
with,
and
all
that
the
applicants
speak
to
that
in
more
detail.
Just
a
couple
of
other
points.
Q
In
terms
of
density,
just
just
to
explain
where
it
stands
today,
the
maximum
allowable
density
on
the
side
is
12
units
per
acre,
which
result
which
would
result
in
376
units
being
permitted.
The
proposed
density
is
220
units,
which
is
about
seven
units
per
acre,
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
picture
there.
Q
Staff
did
not
require,
in
this
case
an
updated
traffic
study
just
based
on
the
fact
that
we're
changing
they
were
only
adding
20
units
and
it's
within
it's
within
the
envelope
of
the
original
original
approval
for
232
they
would.
The
applicant
will
have
to
secure
a
driveway
permit
from
the
city
of
Asheville
as
the
as
I
believe.
The
the
the
abutting
street
is
a
city
of
Asheville,
Street
and
they'll
have
to
go
through
a
process
with
the
city
to
get
that
connection
made.
They've
already
have
done
that
I'll
defer
to
them.
Q
A
P
P
Do
good
afternoon
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Chris
day
I'm
with
civil
design
concepts
here
in
Asheville.
I
want
to
thank
Josh
and
staff
for
their
assistance
as
Josh
made
reference.
This
project
has
been
before
this
board
in
the
past.
In
fact,
we
were
here
last
March,
almost
just
just
under
a
year
ago.
Since
then,
there's
been
a
great
deal
of
activity
happen
on
the
design
side
and
internally
on
this
project,
GC
has
been
brought
on
board.
P
We
have
already
permitted
and
have
a
permit
in
hand
for
Buncombe
County
for
a
stormwater
permit.
The
Buncombe
County
erosion
control
department
is
currently
reviewing
our
erosion
control
plans,
along
with
all
of
that,
we've
been
back
and
forth
with
a
site
contract,
and
maybe
more
importantly,
and
the
reason
that
we're
here
today
is
that
the
architect
has
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
their
plans.
P
That's
what's
happened
over
the
last
year
with
this
project,
as
the
architect
has
gotten
into
the
details
on
this
project,
we
discovered
that
there
was
an
opportunity
to
increase
the
residential
units
in
the
exact
same
footprints
that
were
previously
approved
so
right
now
we're
thinking
that
we're
somewhere
in
the
212
to
215
world,
because
we've
already
been
here
before
I,
don't
want
to
come
back
again
that
we've
gone
ahead
and
we're
asking
today
for
220,
as
Josh
said,
that
is
less
than
the
original
232
that
that
was
on
this.
That
was
entitled
on
this
property.
P
I
think
Josh's
staff
report
kind
of
sums
it
up
very
well,
as
it
makes
reference
to
the
fact
that,
even
though
we're
adding
these
20
apartment
units,
there
is
no
change
to
the
building
size,
mass
building,
height,
building,
footprint,
geometry
or
location.
We're
also
not
asking
to
modify
the
approved
parking
ratio
from
from
the
last
approval.
P
The
the
ordinance
does
give
staff
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
as
it
relates
to
when
we
have
to
shift
building
dimensions
around
a
little
bit,
but
it
doesn't
give
staff
as
I
understand
it
the
ability
to
to
increase
that
density
that
we're
asking
for
today.
So
that
being
said,
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
thank.
M
A
M
M
The
Hall
Creek
community
enjoyed
the
a
new
backyard
about
two
years
ago
when
the
whole
hill
fell
in
it's
cost
over
a
million
dollars
to
repair
and
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
if
you're
going
to
build
in
that
area,
that
a
geotechnical
analysis
be
performed
according
to
the
Sleeps
steep
slope,
areas
which
are
designated
moderate
to
hazard
in
Buncombe,
County
slope
stability
index
you're
supposed
to
do
an
analysis
and
I
just
wondered
if
this
property
had
gone
through.
That
exercise.
M
That's
my
first
question
and
the
second
question
is
to
do
with
the
parking,
given
the
fact
that
most
of
those
units
are
going
to
have
at
least
two
families,
I
mean
at
one
family,
with
two
cars
and
some
instances.
If
they
have
a
kid,
you
have
three
cars,
and
if
you
do
that
by
the
number
of
units
and
a
number
of
parking
spaces,
it
seems
to
me
that
it's
considerably
light
that
ought
to
have
more
parking
spaces.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
P
P
The
majority
of
our
units
are
studios
and
one-bedrooms,
and
our
goal
was
to
based
upon
our
analysis
and
and
submittals
on
the
previous
approvals,
the
the
parking
ratio
that
that
we
are
requesting,
we
feel,
is
adequate
for
our
development,
while
not
providing
too
many
parking
spaces
that
increase
built
upon
areas
and
undisturbed
areas
of
the
site.
So
we
appreciate
the
the
previous
approval
in
the
parking
ratio
and
we're
not
asking
for
any
modifications
to
that
today.
P
M
P
H
B
Z
I
have
I
guess
two
concerns
or
questions.
My
first
question
is:
was
there
an
environmental
impact
study
done,
because
this
particular
area
is
full
of
wild
bears
and
the
North
Carolina
urban
bear
study
works
in
that
area
in
the
tunel
Road
region,
and
we
have
bear
caves
up
in
that
area.
So
I
was
wondering
if
they
had
done
an
environmental
study
or
contacted
the
local
bear
community.
Z
That
studies
this
to
find
out
the
impact
of
that,
because
one
of
our
larger
bears
actually
does
have
a
monitor
on
him.
My
second
question
is
about
I
know.
You
said
that
you've
done
a
traffic
study,
but
the
road
conditions
going
up
is
very,
very
bad
with
full
of
potholes.
Most
of
it
does
not
really
maintain
and
the
road
is
very
narrow.
So
my
concern
is
about
how
are
you
going
to
improve
the
road
conditions
when
there's
very
few
of
us?
You
know
who
live
up
there
to
put
in
a
lot
more
traffic.
P
Relates
to
the
environmental
study,
there
was
no
formal
environmental
study.
We
are
very
familiar
with
the
the
large
amount
of
wildlife
on
the
site.
It
was
something
that,
even
from
the
initial
request
for
our
plan
unit
development
was
to
take
the
density
and
compress
it
down
into
the
the
four
buildings
at
the
lower
portion
of
the
site
to
preserve
the
majority
of
the
site
up
at
the
on
the
higher
reaches,
and
that
was
for
one,
the
just
for
the
enjoyment
of
the
the
community
that's
being
created
here,
but
also
to
preserve
habitat.
H
P
Z
Because,
as
the
road
is
now
it's
full
of
potholes
and
they
will
occasionally
go
out
and
taste
it,
but
in
a
week
we've
got
a
pothole
and
we
swerve
around
okay,
so
two
cars
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
pass
okay
that
the
road
is
not
I,
don't
know,
what's
wrong
with
the
road.
You
know
in
terms
of
whether
it's
the
way
it
was
built
or
what
was
underneath
the
road,
but
that
is
going
to
be
a
really
big
issue
for
everybody
in
that
area
for
the
new
residents,
as
well
as
the
older
residents.
P
Y
Also
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
express
concern
about
the
number
of
pedestrians
who
utilize
piney
mountain
and
then
in
turn,
Chun's
Cove,
I
swerve
around
them
almost
on
a
daily
basis
getting
in
and
out
of
the
center
Park
office,
complex
and
we're
concerned
with
pedestrian
safety
wanted
to
know
whether
a
sidewalk
might
be
a
consideration
to
kind
of
alleviate
that
foot
traffic
and
then,
finally,
whether
the
wte
two-plus
route
will
be
expanded
in
terms
of
its
route
coverage
to
accommodate
the
new
residence
that
the
220
units
being
proposed.
Thanks
thank.
A
AA
AA
One
and
a
half
per
unit
is
light
and
they're
going
to
be
parking
on
the
grass
or
whatever
sidewalks
that
they
have,
but
in
Asheville
at
these
kind
of
prices
for
apartments
you're
going
to
have
at
least
two
drivers
and
if
they
do
3-bedroom
like
they
said
before,
you
could
have
six
cars
per
unit.
Thank
you
very
much.
AA
H
Z
A
P
AB
Mr.
chair,
based
on
the
evidence
presented
to
this
board,
including
following
exhibits,
the
petitioners
application
is
submitted
development
plan,
the
GIS
maps,
the
staff
report,
the
findings
of
fact,
worksheet.
Testimony
presented
of
this
hearing
I
move
that
the
board
adopt
the
following
findings
of
fact,
one
through
six
and
seven,
a
inclusive.
AB
H
A
Right
at
the
risk
of
having
I
just
want
to
kind
of
quickly
address
if
anybody
has
any
questions
about
standing.
Since
this
seems
like
it's
going
to
continue
to
be
an
issue,
we
can
circulate
some
type
of
mild
advisory
memo
that
we're
happy
to
kind
of
reduce.
This
good
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
going
forward
and
I'd
like
to
you
avoid
any
belabor
conversation
about
the
standards
in
the
future.
If
we
can
help
it
attorneys
are
quite
good
at
that
as
it
is
this.
Q
Chair
we,
some
of
us
some
of
the
staff,
are
talking
during
the
break
working
with
Brandon.
We
may
be
able
to
put
together
some
sort
of
review
sheet
or
form
you
actually
work
through
with
each
standing
discussion-
I,
don't
that
makes
sense
or
not,
but
we
could
at
least
look
at
the
possibility
of
doing
something.