Sylva Town Board continues work on steep slope ordinance
SYLVA(6.06.08)–The Sylva Town Board met Thursday night (6.05.08) for the second of two work sessions concerning the town’s planned steep slope development ordinance.
The meetings, led by Director of Planning and Code Enforcement Jim Aust, are intended to help the board clearly understand details of the ordinance in advance of a public hearing on the matter and the board’s ultimate vote.
A date for the public hearing has not been set.
While Jackson County has instituted a county-wide steep slope development ordinance, that ordinance does not apply within Sylva city limits, and, as Aust emphasizes, is not crafted for the higher-density challenges that towns present.
General points of interest regarding Sylva’s proposed ordinance (which is for now a working document)
- The ordinance is generally a blend of ordinances developed by Asheville and Waynesville. Waynesville’s ordinance was itself a derivative of ordinances developed for other towns (including Asheville); Asheville’s ordinance was custom-written with the assistance of the Department of Natural Resources.
- The intention of Sylva’s ordinance is to mitigate water runoff, landslide and fire concerns brought on by pell-mell steep slope development.
- The ordinance is also intended to prevent deep, destructive cuts as seen behind Lowe’s and Zaxby’s in Sylva, and when coupled with separate ridgetop language, can mitigate ridgetop development.
- Some restrictions begin when grades reach 15%, but most are intended for construction on grades exceeding 30%.
- Density (number of structures) allowed on a given parcel is determined by an equation that takes into account the aggregate slope of the parcel.
Specific points of conversation at Thursday’s meeting were as follows:
- The ordinance will limit the density (number of structures) allowed on mountainsides, but will award density bonuses to developers who are willing to follow certain guidelines. For example, a property that by ordinance could take only one structure could qualify for two or three if the developer were willing to cluster the homes on less steep sections of the property and follow certain guidelines.
- The ordinance also limits intensity (size) of structures, particularly with relation to commercial buildings.
- Restrictions with regard to the construction of roads is of particular interest to the board, especially Commissioners Maurice Moody and Harold Hensley. As presented, the ordinance will push for wider, emergency-vehicle friendly private roads. Moody and Hensley argued that so long as the roads can be traversed by vehicles (that they don’t include switchbacks for example), that one-lane roads with pullouts should be sufficient for low-density areas.
- While firm re-vegetation rules will apply to newly-cleared land, Moody and Hensley both argued that wording in the ordinance that called for native plants to be used was unnecessary. Aust and Commissioner Stacy Knotts pointed out that non-native plants are responsible for a number of environmental ills in the community, and that native plants are better suited to the climate and aesthetically. Still, the wording will likely be relaxed to “recommend” native plants, instead.
- At times, when some commissioners argued that the ordinance proposed is too restrictive, Aust and Commissioner Sarah Graham called for perspective. Aust pointed out that some of the grades are so steep as to be impractical for construction, regardless, particularly commercial construction:
Aust: “We have to remember that 30% grade is pretty doggone steep. People that are building above 30% are going to want, and can afford to be separated from each other, bottom line.”
Graham: “We need to take the view that this ordinance is responsible, not restrictive.”
Tags: Sylva
Related posts:
