Staff urges rules for small‑lot infill and recommends survey for historic floodplain building

Town staff and a hired consultant presented two linked issues the council asked them to address: (1) how to manage infill development on very small lots so cumulative impervious surface does not increase downstream stormwater problems, and (2) the condition and options for a 100‑year‑old town building that sits in a mapped floodplain.

Michelle (town staff) told the council that Black Mountain now has hundreds of small lots — staff count approximately 628 parcels smaller than one‑eighth of an acre — and that the town’s current code does not set a percentage limit on impervious surface for those parcels. She presented options: add a percentage limit on built‑upon area in chapter 4 of the land‑use code, add or tighten landscaping requirements in chapter 8, or apply other targeted text amendments. Staff asked the council for direction to research options, best practices, and communications with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and to bring back draft proposals.

Separately, a consultant who evaluated a historic town building explained the floodplain and conformity rules. The building is grandfathered but the consultant said that if renovations qualify as a ‘‘substantial improvement’’ (defined as 50% of building value) the structure would have to be brought into floodplain compliance; for this facility that threshold is about $750,000. Bringing the building into compliance could eliminate the existing ground‑floor functionality because required floodproofing could make the ground floor usable only for open storage or similar non‑habitable uses. The consultant recommended ordering a base‑flood‑elevation survey, opening parallel conversations with FEMA and the town’s insurer, and doing careful design and estimating to avoid accidentally triggering the substantial‑improvement standard while preserving usable space.

Why it matters: staff framed both issues as forward‑looking: small‑lot infill without controls can create cumulative stormwater impacts for downhill neighbors in older parts of town; the floodplain building presents an immediate technical and fiscal choice because an over‑ambitious scope could force a costly compliance retrofit and reduce the building’s utility.

Council reaction and next steps: council members generally supported staff pursuing options and returning with proposals. Staff said they will take the impervious‑surface options to the planning board for review before returning to council and will order the recommended survey for the floodplain building and coordinate with FEMA and insurance as part of any renovation planning.

Quotes

"This issue came to my attention because I had several people contact me to ask, you know, I'm living next to a new construction project ... are they allowed is there a limit to how much they're allowed to pave?" Michelle (town staff) said, summarizing resident concerns and the GIS counts of small parcels.

"Substantial improvements defined as 50% of the value of the building. For this building, dollars 750,000 of work would require it to be brought into compliance with the floodplain," the consultant said, recommending a survey and careful estimating to preserve ground‑floor function.

The council asked staff to return with planning‑board review of infill options, the survey cost estimate, and an implementation plan that clarifies grant and FEMA possibilities before bidding renovation work.