Developer: Scrap Madison ridge top setback building requirement. Residents want to keep it

MARSHALL - Madison County residents are banding together in opposition to a proposed amendment to a county ordinance that they feel could potentially be harmful for not only the aesthetic beauty of the area, but for the local environment as a whole.

The issue is a proposed amendment to the Madison County Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance that would do away with the ordinance's required 50-foot setback from the center of a ridge, which the Madison County Planning Board will discuss in its Nov. 21 meeting.

The county's Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance "regulates the height of tall buildings or structures on mountain ridges, providing for the method of administration and enforcement, defining certain terms used herein, and providing for the imposition of penalties for violation of provisions of the ordinance."

According to the meeting agenda issued by Development Services Director Brad Guth, the application was submitted by Russell Blevins.

Blevins' request is to eliminate the 50-foot setback from the ridgeline required in the Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance, according to the draft agenda issued by Guth,.

Section 503 of the ordinance deals with regulations and setbacks.

Section 503-3 outlines the policy as follows: "Setbacks: When located on a Protected Ridge all structures shall be setback 50’ from the center of said Ridge."

Blevins and Clif Parker purchased Mountain Park, a gated neighborhood in the Mars Hill headwaters of Gabriels Creek, in April.

Parker is managing partner of Mountain Partners, the company that owns Mountain Park. Blevins and Parker own the undeveloped portions of Mountain Park.

The News-Record & Sentinel spoke with Blevins and Parker Nov. 9.

Blevins owns roughly 400 acres at the head of Paint Fork, near Metcalf Creek Loop Road, where he hopes to build a cabin.

"That's the reason I asked about this setback, because I own both sides of that ridge," Blevins said. "On the property that I own with my two sides, I own both sides of the ridge, and I have since 1997-98. There are no houses on this property, and I want the ability to build where I've always wanted to build, which is basically on the center of that ridge.

"I think my children probably want to build a couple houses also, not big houses, but some houses. And it happens to be over 3,000 feet."

The North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act of 1983 established protections in the form of building height restrictions for ridgelines at or above 3,000 feet, and came into legislation in response to an Avery County condominium complex, Sugar Mountain.

Blevins said the state's Mountain Ridge Protection Act says nothing of a 50-foot setback, which is why he wants to do away with it.

"What the setback does is pushes me off a perfect building site onto the slope of the ridge," Blevins said. "Where I personally want to build, you cannot see the house. It makes no sense to me to arbitrarily push me off the center of a stable building site that's less stable and more costly because of a setback."

"I know I can't build on the center of the ridge at Mountain Park, because I don't own the entire vicinity of the ridge at Mountain Park."

Blevins said he is not in disagreement with the county's Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance's minimum 2-acre lot size requirement, nor its requirement that no one shall disturb or clear more than 25% of the lot.

"I'm not in disagreement with the 2-acre limitation," Blevins said. "I'm not in disagreement with 25% clearing limitation, that's in the ordinance. But what I am in disagreement with is the setback, which is not in the state law."

Henry Gargan is an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center's Asheville office.

According to Gargan, Madison County’s ridgetop setbacks are consistent with North Carolina’s Mountain Ridge Protection Act and the broad authorities North Carolina counties have to protect mountain ridges.

"Removing the current setbacks would not bring the county ordinance more in line with that state law nor advance our legislature’s intention to protect the mountain region’s natural beauty," Gargan said. "If one-off exceptions are necessary, the far better way to deal with those situations is by working with landowners to grant variances.”

Clear Sky Madison founder Jim Tibbetts said the organization hoped to present a letter to the Planning Board suggesting the same thing — that Blevins submit the project with a condition, rather than request to do away with the setback entirely.

"The current 50’ setback defined in Madison County’s Ridge Protection ordinance should remain intact to affirm the wise and thoughtful protections that have been in place for 40 years," Clear Sky Madison said in a draft letter. "A text amendment application for a county-wide ordinance, submitted by a single landowner with a financial stake in the amendment, is not a good way for county governments to reconsider county-wide policy decisions.

"That said, there is an established process for seeking variances on individual development needs through the Madison County Board of Adjustment. Addressing site-specific concerns through variance makes far more sense than doing away with an important element of the county Ridge Protection ordinance entirely."

The News-Record & Sentinel asked Blevins, a former Madison County Planning Board chair from 1997-2001, why he chose to apply for a request to do away with the setback requirement, rather than apply for the project and use a condition.

"My problem is, I don't want to be restricted. I'm not doing this so much for myself as for my kids and my grandkids," Blevins said, who worked for 31 years with the federal government's National Resources Conservation Services department, and is the current chair of Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District, and a chair at Mountain Valleys Resource Conservation and Development Council.

"People come in here from out of here, and they don't know the capabilities of the land, and they don't know the difficulties of the land. There has been a lot of development started and gone bankrupt, because they didn't understand the costs to try to build roads on impossible spots. So, you've got to build your roads where it's not an impossible spot."

A Facebook group, Save Our Area Ridges, was started by East Fork community neighbors to raise awareness of the application for the amendment. As of Nov. 9, there were more than 120 members.

More: 3 subdivision projects to be consi Development growth continues in Madison: 3 subdivision projects to be considered

More: Planning board approves 13-lot Mars Hill subdivision

More: 53-lot Mars Hill major subdivision heads to final step as developer addresses shared wells

Chris Flaherty is an East Fork neighbor.

"In a county where there are deep-seated political, religious, and philosophical divides among its residents, there are few issues where a consensus can be achieved," Flaherty told The News-Record & Sentinel. "Based on the support that I have seen, heard and read for the Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance, this is one subject that most Madison County residents appear to agree upon. It’s remarkable."

For Asia Suler, who is one of the Facebook group administrators, the Madison County ridges are tied to its identity.

"I've always loved Madison County's slogan: 'The Jewel of the Blue Ridge.' To me, the ridges of this county are what makes this area so uniquely beautiful and precious," Suler said. "Our ridges are bastions of not only ecological diversity, clean watersheds and wild game, but also of Madison County's deep heritage and history. To be able to build developments directly on these ridges would be like grinding diamonds down into dust."

Parker and Blevins said they hope to clear up misconceptions about the project.

"We volunteered, when we bought this property, to not cut more than 25% of the trees on any time we go to cut any timber," Parker said. "Have you ever seen that in any other real estate sale, that the buyer is agreeing not to do something with the land that they're buying? So, we did that to show what our intentions were. The general public doesn't know that, but we agreed to do that. We wanted to show to our neighbors, 'This is our intentions.'

"I believe in property rights. I believe in conservation. This is not a new development, as they claim it is. Mountain Park started in the early 2000s, we just bought it. We didn't create anything new. Some say 'Some big-daddy developer.' I'm not a big daddy developer. I grew up in Spring Creek and went to Madison High School."

Blevins said people have the wrong idea about him, too.

"People all of a sudden think I'm just some out here, rich developer that's going to destroy the environment, which I've spent 30 years protecting, or longer," Blevins said. "I'm a forestry guy. I tell people I'm a tree hugger. I hug about every tree I come to before I want to cut it.

"My degree from University of Tennessee is forestry, and I've specialized in upland hardwood management."

In Blevins' view, a serious overhaul of the county ordinances is needed.

"I have a real desire to see logging roads laid out in the correct way, and not cause erosions and sediment," Blevins said. "To think that we want to do what's being done in Woodfin, that's absolutely incorrect."

But Blevins conceded that scrapping the setback requirement could usher in more development.

"It might," He said. "Let's take the 50-foot off. Madison County's Subdivision Ordinance has nothing in it that protects that. If they wanted, they ought to put it in it. But Madison County's Subdivision Ordinance will not stop that.

"Madison County Subdivision Ordinance has a 1-acre minimum lot size. So, if you want to do something about it, make it 2 acres."

This article originally appeared on Asheville Citizen Times: Madison residents oppose request to cut ridge top setback requirement