Citizen Survey Summary
The Citizen Survey collected input from a random sample of property owners living in Henderson County. Samples were derived from the Henderson County Tax Assessor’s database of property owners. The Citizen Survey was designed and executed by Insight Research, Inc., of Greensboro, NC, in cooperation with the CCP Advisory Committee and Henderson County Staff. The document may be viewed in full at http://www.hendersoncountync.org/planning/ccp. A hard copy of the full Citizen Survey Report is available in the offices of the Henderson County Planning Department.
Surveys were mailed to 2,029 randomly selected property owners in Henderson County. A total of 596 surveys were returned, for a 29% response rate.
Municipal
vs. County Resident
|
||
|
|
Count |
Percent of
Responses |
|
Incorporated |
210 |
35.23 |
|
Unincorporated |
386 |
64.77 |
|
Total Responses |
596 |
100.00 |
Residents’ Length of Time in County
General Questions and Mean Responses
Distribution of
General Question Means
Policy / Regulation Questions and Mean Responses
(County Policies and Regulations Should
Address the Following…)
Distribution of
Policy / Regulation Means
Spending
Priorities Questions & Mean Responses
(County should expend tax dollars to address
the following issues…)
Distribution of
Spending Priorities Means
In general terms, the Survey indicated higher levels of agreement that the rural / scenic qualities of the county should be protected, that development should be visually attractive, that development should steer away from flood-prone areas, and that the County should protect the natural environment. The Survey indicated lower levels of agreement that the County should engage in the support of tourism or economic development activities, in the provision of affordable housing, or the restriction of commercial development in rural areas.
The Survey indicated higher levels of agreement that County regulations and policies should protect water and air quality, prevent floodplain development, and protect farmland. There was a low level of agreement that County regulations and policies should provide for affordable housing, that the County should regulate aesthetics through lighting and architectural standards, or that development should be limited in areas not served by utilities.
The Survey indicated higher levels of agreement that the County should contribute revenues to the protection of air and water quality, and to farmland and open space protection. There was a low level of agreement that the County should contribute revenues to promote tourism, to support public transportation system, or to develop recreational and greenways facilities.
A total of 14 Community Meetings were held, one in each fire district (or grouping thereof), plus a makeup meeting. Please see Appendix II: Public Input, Community Meeting Summary, Community Meeting Area Map, Community Meeting Schedule. Also, a separately bound document, A Summary of Phase III, Henderson County Comprehensive Plan, and the Compilation of Citizen Input from Community Meetings, is available for review in the offices of the Henderson County Planning Department.
The Community Meetings were open to the general public and gathered written and verbal input that focused upon issues facing the communities in which they were held. The Community Meeting process was designed and executed by the Staff of the Dispute Settlement Center of Henderson County (“DSC”) in cooperation with the CCP Advisory Committee and Henderson County Staff. A summary of the community meeting responses is given below. To review verbatim transcriptions please see Summary of Phase III, Henderson County Comprehensive Plan, and Compilation of Citizen Input from Community Meetings.
The Community Meetings were advertised through an intensive public relations campaign that included advertisements in local newspapers and on local radio stations, the distribution of flyers in each community, press releases, and other outlets. As many as 564 persons attended the Community Meetings countywide, with 516 persons officially recorded via demographic cards distributed at each meeting.
The following figure summarizes demographic characteristics of those individuals who attended and provided input at each Community Meeting.
|
Countywide Attendance |
Age of Participants |
|||||
|
0-17 |
18-35 |
36-50 |
51-65 |
>65 |
N/A |
|
|
1% |
4% |
16% |
41% |
36% |
2% |
|
|
Countywide Responses |
Home Ownership Status |
||
|
Own |
Rent |
No Response |
|
|
87% |
3% |
10% |
|
|
Countywide Responses |
Years Attendees Have Resided in Henderson County |
|||||
|
0-9 |
10-29 |
30-49 |
50-69 |
70-89 |
90+ |
|
|
39% |
27% |
16% |
14% |
3% |
0.19% |
|
|
Countywide Responses |
Residential Status in Fire District |
||
|
No Response |
Full Time |
Part Time |
|
|
35% |
62% |
3% |
|
|
Countywide Responses |
Municipal Residence Status |
|||||
|
Flat Rock |
Fletcher |
Hendersonville |
Laurel Park |
Mills River |
County |
|
|
3% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
7% |
86% |
|
|
Countywide Responses |
Business Owner? |
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
12% |
88% |
|
Community Meeting responses were both written and verbal. Both sets of comments were typed and sorted into major groupings of subject matter or “Primary Categories.” The following table details how all comments were sorted and indicates the subjects of most interest to attendees.
|
Public Comment Category |
||
|
Primary Category |
Total
Comments |
Percentage
All Comments |
|
Manage Growth |
3772 |
32.25% |
|
Transportation |
2013 |
17.21% |
|
Environment |
891 |
7.62% |
|
Recreation |
817 |
6.99% |
|
Quality of Life |
642 |
5.49% |
|
Emergency Services |
537 |
4.59% |
|
Services, Commercial |
451 |
3.86% |
|
Sewer / Water |
327 |
2.80% |
|
Schools |
316 |
2.70% |
|
Aesthetics |
285 |
2.44% |
|
Governance |
247 |
2.11% |
|
Economy |
236 |
2.02% |
|
Waste Management |
234 |
2.00% |
|
Libraries |
179 |
1.53% |
|
Telecommunications / Electrical |
125 |
1.07% |
|
Animal Control |
119 |
1.02% |
|
Services, Young and Old |
99 |
0.85% |
|
Meeting Facility |
90 |
0.77% |
|
Medical |
84 |
0.72% |
|
Location |
65 |
0.56% |
|
Diversity |
63 |
0.54% |
|
Churches |
39 |
0.33% |
|
Noise |
15 |
0.13% |
|
Social Services |
15 |
0.13% |
|
News Paper |
14 |
0.12% |
|
Natural Gas |
12 |
0.10% |
|
General Electric |
9 |
0.08% |
|
Total Comments |
11,696 |
|
After being sorted into Primary Categories, comments were then further grouped into Summary Comments which reflect the general sentiment of all comments in the category. Figure PI.12 details the summary comments. As with the preceding figure, this figure is sorted by descending order of priority of the Primary Category.
Public comment
Summary
|
Primary Category |
Summary Comment |
Summary Comment as % All Comments |
|
Manage
Growth |
Value
agriculture/ rural landscape; desire protection / preservation / enhancement. |
8.23% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Desire
growth, but approve of current measures to manage and regulate growth,
including zoning; want additional measures to manage growth; desire
consistency and stability in zoning. |
5.98% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Commercial:
regulate placement of commercial land uses; protect residential communities
from the negative impacts of commercial land uses. |
5.77% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Industrial:
regulate placement of industrial land uses; protect residential communities
from the negative impacts of industrial land uses. |
3.61% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Property
Rights: Oppose zoning and other burdensome regulations that impose the will of
others at the expense of private property rights. |
2.53% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Housing:
Oppose dense housing |
1.44% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Housing:
Minimize manufactured housing, and / or improve the appearance thereof. |
1.42% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Regulate
Housing Growth |
0.91% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Residential:
Residential communities should be protected from encroachment from
incompatible uses. |
0.74% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Housing:
Need affordable housing |
0.69% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Floodplain:
Protect the floodplain and prevent development therein via regulations. |
0.56% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Enforcement:
Desire more consist and proactive building inspections and zoning code
enforcement. |
0.15% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Housing:
Oppose affordable housing |
0.12% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Churches:
Oppose development of more; churches in need of regulation. |
0.06% |
|
Manage
Growth |
Housing:
Favor density |
0.05% |
|
Transportation |
Suggested
improvements to specific roads |
5.85% |
|
Transportation |
Current
road system needs repairs and general improvements. Gravel roads need to be paved, and dangerously winding roads
should be straightened and widened, potholes filled, and etc. Multiple lanes should be added where
congestion conditions warrant such. |
2.73% |
|
Transportation |
Public
Transportation: Support current system and desire to see it maintained and
expanded. |
2.21% |
|
Transportation |
Traffic
congestion in Henderson County is steadily worsening, with negative consequences
for quality of life, economic development, and etc. Areas of higher traffic congestion and urban density need
additional lanes, turning lanes, improved intersections, slow lanes, and
etc., to improve traffic flow and capacity.
|
1.98% |
|
Transportation |
The
county has a quality, well-designed road system that is well maintained. Traffic congestion is pleasantly low. |
1.45% |
|
Transportation |
Better
traffic safety / speed limit enforcement is needed. Heavy commercial truck traffic is causing problems on certain
roads; pose a safety hazard that should be addressed. |
1.35% |
|
Transportation |
Opposed
to additional road construction, widening or multi-lane roads. |
0.57% |
|
Transportation |
Mixed
desire for both more and fewer traffic lights. Underlying both is an agreement that traffic signals need
improvement in terms of spacing, location, timing, synchronization, etc. Certain dangerous intersections require
signalization. |
0.46% |
|
Transportation |
Public
Transportation: Opposed to; not needed; waste of public funds, do not want
near homes. |
0.27% |
|
Transportation |
A
bypass around the Hendersonville urban area is needed. |
0.20% |
|
Transportation |
The
county is in need of improved, coordinated transportation planning that is
actively implemented. |
0.15% |
|
Environment |
Value
/ favor protection mountains / scenic views / natural beauty |
3.08% |
|
Environment |
Value
/ favor protection water quality, wetlands |
1.95% |
|
Environment |
Value
/ favor protection trees / vegetation / wildlife / nature |
1.66% |
|
Environment |
Value
/ favor protection air quality |
0.58% |
|
Environment |