By David Rogers. BLOWING ROCK, N.C. — What is “progress”? For some, it is bigger, faster and more lucrative. For others, it is preserving or increasing the quality of life without creating chaos. For still others, progress might be something entirely different.
Conflicts in the wants, needs, values, priorities and ambitions of Blowing Rock’s differing constituent interests became glaringly evident at the Sept. 18 meeting of Blowing Rock’s Planning Board. At issue was the proposed development of a 98-room Hampton Inn hotel on a 2-acre parcel between the Blowing Rock Furniture Gallery and the Holiday Inn Express hotel, bordering both Valley Boulevard and Ransom Street.
Given the emotional tenor of a room filled with Ransom Street residents and small town atmosphere “protectors,” it was not surprising that Planning Board vice chairman Tom Barrett, charged with chairing the meeting in the absence of chairman Chris Squires, lost control of it at times. Between Planning Board members talking over each other and outbursts from the audience, there should be a degree of embarrassment in how the meeting was conducted, not just by the board members but by the town commissioners who appointed them. Board member Brandon Walker at times tried to bring the meeting’s discourse back into focus on the issue and the decisions that had to be made with a degree of rationality, but his and others’ frustration at the periodic lack of decorum was clearly evident.
While Barrett instructed speakers from the floor to limit their remarks to three minutes and to speak directly to their observations or concerns about the proposed project, most were allowed to wander off topic with their personal back-stories to any comments about the proposed development, as well as to express broader personal opinions. While most of their comments were interesting and may have provided a degree of perspective, much of the public commentary was off-topic, if staying on-topic was the objective.
Disappointment at the meeting’s conduct aside, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Board of Commissioners vote to deny the application, if and when it is presented to Town Council.
Although the proposed project appeared to meet most requirements of town code except for a variance request regarding impervious surfaces, I think the Planning Board got it right with their rejection of the proposed development, and here are my reasons:
Safety
According to what I saw in the plans, ingress and egress was proposed for a driveway on Ransom Street. The applicant (represented by a casually dressed consultant and an engineer, not by any of the principals) testified that the NC Department of Transportation declined a permit for a Valley Boulevard access point because it would be too close to Valley Boulevard’s intersection with South Main Street where there is a signal light.
The implied result is increased traffic on Ransom Street and pedestrian safety concerns since the street is without sidewalks. Per comments made by Ransom Street residents, the absence of sidewalks has long been noted, including in the most recent Blowing Rock-commissioned Comprehensive Plan, they said. Given the lack of pedestrian accommodations and the probability that Ransom Street would see increased usage as a shortcut pathway to downtown by non-residents staying at the hotel, the speed and volume of probable traffic only magnifies the pedestrian safety concerns, whether Ransom Street residents or hotel guests choosing to walk to Main Street.
Potential for Litigation
One of the speakers pointed out that the Holiday Inn Express on the north side of Ransom Street, across the street from this proposed Hampton Inn, had previously asked for permission to create access to Ransom Street from its property. Each time their requests were denied. So the question is legitimately raised: If this new hotel is granted access to Ransom Street, what would be the potential (legal) response from the Holiday Inn ownership?
Scale
To construct what amounts to a 3-story building visible from the front side and as much as a 6-story hotel on the back side seems out of character for Blowing Rock — and the consequences of allowing what some described as a massive building may invite similar larger-scale projects on Valley Boulevard or elsewhere within the town limits, potentially.
Resident Wayne Miller, who is also a candidate for the board of commissioners in the upcoming election, drew parallels to the resort town of Steamboat Springs, Colo., a once quiet, small town resort destination that “blew up” in scale once it was “discovered” and larger projects were permitted to be built.
While somewhat off-topic, Miller’s observations bring a focus to the question of where Blowing Rock wants to see itself in, say, 20-30 years. According to published U.S. Census statistics, after Steamboat Springs was “discovered” and large scale developments were permitted, the town saw a more than 600 percent increase in its full-time population between 1970 and 2020. There are similarities between the earlier Steamboat Springs and Blowing Rock, except the Colorado town’s primary “season” is in the winter.
Seasonal residents come to Blowing Rock to escape the heat of the lowlands from late spring to the autumn months, pushing the residential population from less than 1,500 to more than 6,000, plus tourists, of course. Seasonal residents and tourists flock to Steamboat Springs from November to March, for the winter-related recreation.
History tends to repeat itself. Like Steamboat Springs, if larger scale lodging developments are approved in Blowing Rock, look for even more visitors to town and increased multi-family residential developments (i.e., condominiums), as well as other larger scale lodging options.
There is no right or wrong, only cause and effect — and they are age-old questions: What are the limits to existing town infrastructure, i.e. traffic, parking, water and sewer, law enforcement, fire protection, and more? What are the costs of such growth and who will pay them?
Watershed
Requesting a variance for a higher percentage of impervious surfaces did not sit well with some of the board members — and those concerns were underlined by Chetola Resort owner Warren Cathcart when he noted that all of the runoff into the Middle Fork South Fork New River eventually finds its way into Chetola Lake, which necessitates periodic dredging to remove the silt, mud and other debris that has settled. It is an expensive endeavor, whether the dredging costs are borne solely by Chetola or shared by the town because of the runoff from upstream properties.
Countering the Concerns
Given the uptick in property tax revenue that such a large hotel development would bring to the town coffers, there will at least be a temptation for the governing body to approve the development. But the direct economic impact cannot be the only driver of decision-making.
Most of the speakers from the audience claimed to NOT be anti-development. They just didn’t think this proposed hotel belonged in Blowing Rock, especially because it so adversely impacts the Ransom Street neighborhood.
Any property owner has a fundamental right to put his lor her land to work for their financial benefit — if they don’t unfairly intrude on the rights of neighboring residents or property owners. A challenge of municipal governance is to craft a balance between the interests of differing constituent interests, sometimes representing a broad spectrum of wants, needs, values, priorities and ambitions.
Every 10 years or so, Blowing Rock reviews and revises its Comprehensive Plan aimed at gathering a consensus for what the present and future town should look like. Business owners, residents and prospective developers should all do more than give lip service to the document’s contents when making plans or objecting to others’ plans and ideas.
Per the discussion questions raised by Planning Board member Steve Cohen, there may be a need to revisit the work of an earlier Planning Board subcommittee to potentially revise and update the town’s Land Use Code. What came of that subcommittee’s work and, if stalled, why?
For the subject property owner, they may be in an awkward position even to receive approval of a scaled down development because of the ingress-egress from Valley Boulevard issue and the precedence that has been set for such access to be from Ransom Street.
So, all this begs a very important question: When development projects are presented for approval by the powers that be (ultimately, the then-sitting Board of Commissioners), how far are developers allowed to push what, admittedly, can be subjective or even obscure limits in the writing of town code before facing widespread public outcry and scrutiny?
