Neighbors object to home construction on Waynesville golf course

Feb. 28—The town's planning board voted Monday night to continue a public hearing to next month on a controversial plan that would allow for 12 single-family homes off Longview Drive inside the Waynesville Inn and Golf Club.

The board also tabled a public hearing on a proposal by WGC to build 13 single-family homes on a separate larger parcel of land in the Greenview subdivision. Both public hearings will be on March 18.

The move came after several residents and an Asheville attorney representing other nearby home owners voiced opposition to the Longview Drive plan.

The vote to continue the public hearing until the March 18 planning board meeting will allow the two parties to try and reach a compromise on differences in the proposed subdivision, said Ginger Hain, a planning board member.

WGC is asking that the currently zoned minimum lot size of a half-acre be waived to allow the 12 homes to be built on the 3.49-acre parcel. As proposed, the subdivision will have lot sizes between 0.13 acres to 0.27 acres.

That drew the opposition of several nearby property owners who said the proposed subdivision was too dense. Other residents cited safety concerns on an already busy Longview Drive.

Patrick Bradshaw of Civil Design Concepts argued for WGC that the current zoning for the property could allow for up to 18 townhomes on the property but instead the plan was to do 12 "tastefully done" single family homes.

"I think the recognition of this is that our own land use plan as well as our permitted density within the district is six units per acre by right," Bradshaw said.

The board first rejected a motion by board member Jan Grossman to recommend denial of the Longview request before voting to continue the public hearing until March 18. The vote to recommend denial failed on a 5-2 vote with John Baus joining Grossman in recommending denial. Hain, Stuart Bass, Michael Blackburn, Tommy Thomas and Travis Collins voted no.

The planning board then voted 5-2 to continue the public hearing until March with Thomas and Blackburn opposing the continuation. Grossman, Baus, Bass, Hain and Collins voted to continue the public hearing.

Before the start of the public hearing, land-use attorney Clinton Cogburn of the Asheville law firm Ward and Smith, asked the board for a one-month continuance of the public hearing. Cogburn said he was representing around 10 nearby property owners opposed to the WGC plan as proposed but admitted only two of those property owners were at the meeting while a third tested positive for COVID on Monday.

Cogburn said that WGC's application was only filed on Jan. 9 and that a neighborhood meeting with the developer was "only held last week." He said the month-long pause could be used for the two parties to work out their differences.

"There is a need for additional information," Cogburn said. "A one-month continuance is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things."

Bradshaw, however, told the board that the public hearing was well publicized and that WGU adhered to the town's application process. He voiced concern about continuing a scheduled public meeting just "because a group of folks got together and hired an attorney."

"If I heard Mr. Cogburn correctly, he was hired by 10 people and two of them are here," Bradshaw said. "I understand a gentleman has been recently diagnosed with COVID. I think it is out of order to say, 'Sorry, you followed the process and the rules but it is important enough that we are going to kick that can for 30 days.'"

The board ultimately decided to proceed with the public hearing while reserving the right to continue the meeting at a future after hearing from Bradshaw and those opposed to the proposed project.

Bradshaw said WGC is willing to meet with Cogburn and his clients as well as other people opposed to the project for further discussions before Waynesville Town Council ultimately votes on the project. He noted that the developer held a neighborhood meeting last week where 120 individual property owners were invited, which was more than is required in the application process, and that 26 attended the meeting.

"We can reconvene the neighborhood meeting yet again to hear their thoughts and ideas," Bradshaw said. "We are not running away from a discussion. I think the people here for tonight's presentation will be more informed on the context of this development."

WGC plans to sell the lots to individuals who would then hire their own builders. Bradshaw said all the homes would be subject to the developments restrictive covenants as well as go before its architectural review board for what "they can and can't do."

Bradshaw told the board that another concern raised at the neighborhood meeting is that the proposed homes would block the long-range views of neighboring properties. He said the 12 homes would be no higher than 1 1/2 stories and be around 1,800-square feet on the main living level, which includes the garage.

"These lots largely sit on average of 40-foot or more below the (neighboring) lots above," Bradshaw said. "The idea of a long-range view changing for these folks is simply unfounded."

Nearby resident Carol Feichter told the planning board that the proposed lots are too small.

"They don't fit the area," she said. "If they do (half-acre) lots required by the town than that wouldn't be a problem. My biggest concern is I do not think it is compatible with the area in general."

Cogburn again spoke during public comments and said the WGC is seeking "significant concessions" regarding lot size, lot width and design standards. He said six of the 12 proposed lots are 0.2 acres or less.

"They (developer) are essentially telling you to trust us," Cogburn said. "They are asking for a waiver of the 0.5 minimum lot size and the largest lot size here is 0.27 acres. This is a considerable departure from the requirements. I would ask that this board either have a continuance so the applicant can address these concerns or deny it and send a signal to the applicant that it needs additional specificity before it gets certain concessions."

Longview Drive resident and country club member Gerry Gilbert said he is a utility site developer in Florida and told the planning board that it needs to require a soil study before approving any plan.

The proposed site of the development used to be the No. 6 hole on the golf course before it was removed during a recent renovation. Gilbert said that the ground could be contaminated from many decades of fertilizer being used on the parcel when it was part of the golf course.

"(Fertilizer) has been dropped in this case for 100 years, nobody knows what that dirt looks like," Gilbert said. "I can tell you it won't be uncontaminated, it will be contaminated. They want to sell lots and wash their hands of it. Nobody wants to build on that."

Baus said that there is no reason for the planning board to issue waivers to the developer.

"This is all about putting more lots on a small piece of property," Baus said. "Since they didn't give another reason the only reason is money. That is not a reason why we should waive our rules. This is an obliteration of our standards."