Brace yourself for the density.
If you haven’t driven around Buncombe or Henderson counties lately and checked out some of the new, densely packed subdivisions being built, you ought to take a Sunday drive. It’s a glimpse of the future, as well as the present.
Take a spin out Pond Road in Enka or down Rutledge Road on the border of Buncombe and Henderson counties and scout out some of the new neighborhoods. What will immediately strike you is they’re fairly sizable homes with almost no yards, or in some cases attached townhomes that take up a block before a gap appears.
And it looks like this is what’s coming to Haw Creek, nestled in a valley in East Asheville, with the proposed development of The Meadows at New Haw Creek. The development will feature 60 single-family homes and 35 townhomes. The houses are planned for the east side of New Haw Creek Road, the townhomes to the west.
This 27-acre parcel lies within the Asheville limits, and the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission approved the plans March 20 on a 4-3 split vote. It goes to Asheville City Council on April 23. If Council approves the plan, it will have a final review by the city’s Technical Review Committee.
I met with concerned neighbors last week at the site, and what immediately struck me is that this is a project that illustrates the crux of the transition Asheville, Buncombe and surrounding areas are going through. Formerly rural land, or at least older houses on unusually large lots, that were owned by older folks who’ve passed on, now will become housing for dozens or hundreds of families.
It’s a pretty site, with huge old-growth trees, a rolling meadow and Haw Creek running through it.
The developer, L.B. Jackson & Company of Arden, wants to pack in cookie cutter homes where neighbors can almost reach out the windows and high five each other during Carolina basketball games. I’m not knocking Jackson — we need homes and people snap these up — but it’s kind of a stark contrast to homes sitting on five or 10 acres apiece like they did in the old days.
Neighbors say they’re not anti-development
Not surprisingly, neighbors have raised a lot of concerns about The Meadows, including increased traffic, loss of tree canopy, lack of compatibility with existing homes in the area, concerns about the flood plain and increased flooding, creation of more impervious surfaces, and what they say is a lack of negotiating with the developer.
Haw Creek resident Susan Bicknell said the neighborhood design is kind of “a shock.”
“His designs are that every house is identical, and they’re all eight feet apart,” Bicknell said. “And then there’s no trees. He takes everything.”
The developer and the lawyer representing the project dispute that notion, but the project would reduce the tree canopy on site from 53 percent to 17 percent, according to a city planning staff report. The staff recommended approval of the plan, by the way, noting it meets the city’s development ordinance requirements, as well as long-term goals set out in the comprehensive plan.
By right, meaning the right of a landowner to use the property, Jackson could build 49 homes on the tract, or divide it and do 49 on each side of the road in separate projects. That would not require City Council approval, and it also would mean no greenways or buffers the developer has agreed to do already, said Derek Allen, an attorney representing The Meadows.
But the developer is seeking a conditional zoning change that would allow for the 95 homes to go up, and that does require City Council approval.
“And what City Council and city planners have told us all along is that a conditional zoning is an opportunity for negotiation,” said Chris Pelly, another Haw Creek neighbor and a former Asheville City Council member. “He’s not negotiating.”
I asked the city’s Planning and Urban Design folks about this, and they responded via City of Asheville spokesperson Kim Miller.
“Any developer must meet the new and revised neighborhood meeting standards to move forward with an application,” Miller said via email. “There is nothing in the process of conditional zoning that states that the applicant must/shall negotiate with residents.”
Pelly and the four other neighbors I met with stress that they are not anti-development and are not opposed to all residential development on the site.
“Our pitch to City Council is basically, ‘Look, we know we need more housing. We know this is a site that’s suitable for housing in many ways, and we’re not opposed to a development here,” Pelly said. “But what we are opposed to is somebody that wants to double it, and then not do anything for the community, even though we’re gonna have more traffic, more flooding, more everything, basically.”
Haw Creek resident Terry Laconich said they never started out with a “Not in our back yard” stance, often called NIMBYism.
“We understand the city wants to infill because you have lower infrastructure costs, and so we recognize this is going to be developed,” Laconich said.
But the residents say they’ve had four meetings with the developer, including one required by city code, and Laconich said true give-and-take is sorely lacking. He noted that the larger trees slated for removal absorb much more harmful carbon and produce much more helpful oxygen than newly planted saplings, but he said the developer has not shown a willingness to change the layout of streets or construction footprint of homes to keep some trees standing.
“They’re never negotiating,” Laconich said, noting that Allen, the attorney who represents The Meadows, told the Planning & Zoning Commission that they had to stick with 95 units. “Because his final word,” Laconich said, “was, ‘We need to make the numbers work. We need 95 units to make the numbers work.’”
Pelly said the residents would love to see a loop trail through a six-acre wooded section on the property’s western border that would connect to Evergreen Charter School. But this would require the developer to agree not to develop the six acres.
Allen told me in a phone interview that they have negotiated with neighbors during and after the four neighborhood meetings, and that “the hardest part with that is trying to balance all the things folks want.”
In the Planning & Zoning meeting, Allen said there “has been significant progress” on concerns about traffic, open space and connectivity.
Allen started off at the meeting with a bigger-picture outlook, noting how historically, exclusionary zoning has kept more-affordable residential developments, such as townhomes or densely packed housing, out of many areas. The city has expressed its desire to see more infill housing and more density, which should translate into more affordable homes, although this development is going to have market rate homes.
Still, the idea is that more housing of all types is needed, and more housing on the market should lead to more affordability in housing.
“We talk about this all the time as a community,” Allen said March 20. “I’m here to tell you, that policy — this is what it looks like. It’s not going to go into some area where there aren’t folks. That’s just not gonna happen.”
He showed a map of the development, noting how much existing development is already in Haw Creek.
“There’s not just some magic piece of property where this is just going to go where we can put this and everybody is going to high-five,” Allen said.
Kevin Jackson, with L.B. Jackson & Company, said typically they’re “spec builders,” meaning they build the houses first and sell as they go. He also acknowledged that building tighter or erecting townhomes does allow for “better economies of scale by building more,” as the price per square foot is much lower.
“What does the community get?”
John Noor, a Haw Creek resident and attorney who works on land use cases, also spoke at the March meeting. He has worked with the neighbors but wasn’t officially working the case at the meeting as an attorney.
Noor pointed out that the developer is asking for 95 homes.
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but in return for that, what does the community get?” Noor said.
He mentioned the talks about preserving more trees, better connections for greenways, and potential sidewalks (the city approved these nearly a decade ago and they still haven’t been built).
Like Allen, Noor took a more universal approach, citing recent controversial developments like the one on Charlotte Street that involved tearing down old homes for a higher-density project.
Noor said they become “the five stages of grief and a pitchfork event where everybody comes out and is hostile to the development because the process doesn’t incentivize the negotiation between an organized neighborhood and the applicant.”
“If we can figure that out here, my hope is that we won’t have every single one of these projects come to P&Z and to council and be that hostile type of event,” Noor said. “Instead the developer knows I’ve got to from the beginning work with the community because (that’s what expected).”
He asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give neighbors more time to work with the developer to sort out the problems.
Well, that didn’t happen.
Allen had said they really need to keep the ball rolling, which developers and their lawyers always say, even though sometimes developments languish for years when the developers aren’t feeling the burn. I’ll also note that it also always seems like developers have to have exactly X number of homes or apartments on a project for it to make money and be acceptable to investors.
In this case the number is 95, but there’s always a number, and it must remain inviolate. My suspicion here is that, sure, the number could change, but then the developer and the investors would only make gobs of money, instead of gobs and gobs.
Perhaps that’s cynical. But really, how many poor developers do you know?
Also, how many neighborhoods have you seen where old trees were left standing? I know in my development, built 25 years ago, they started out leaving most of the trees on the lots, nestling the houses among them.
Then when they got in a hurry, and maybe a little greedier, they just mowed them all down, brought in fill dirt and made level pads on which to slap up homes. Let’s not pretend that making money is not the main driver.
“If you look in all these neighborhoods — I mean I have 11 huge oaks in my front yard, and so do all these houses back here,” another Haw Creek neighbor, Stefanie Kovacs, told me as I talked with the group.
Kovacs said they have a petition with more than 2,000 signatures on it opposing the project.
“It doesn’t say we’re against development,” Kovacs said. “It’s just opposing it as is.”
The neighbors have had community discussions, meetings, and email groups, she said, “and we’ve talked about how we are willing to negotiate. I personally still think 70 houses is too much, but you know what? If that’s what we can get, that would be great, if you can have some trees left,” Kovacs said.
We’re all here because of development
Here’s another angle I always find fascinating in these discussions: None of us are from here originally. Sure, some families go back to the 1700s around here — when Haw Creek attracted the first white settlers — but unless you’re Cherokee, you’re not from here.
Every single house, subdivision, neighborhood, town, or city that people live in wasn’t here once. We’re all here because of development.
Pelly originally is from New Jersey but has lived here since 1990, while Kovacs is from Maryland but has been in Asheville since 2000. Bicknell has lived in Asheville for 30 years, with 20 of those in Haw Creek. Resident Tom Lodge, a wetlands ecologist who shared his concerns about the potential for more flooding with the development, is from Florida but has been here for 20 years. Laconich has been here for six years.
I’ve been here for 29 years. We all love this place and these beautiful mountains — and yes, the lovely old farmhouses and pastures that used to dominate the area — but you can’t just close the door on newcomers.
“I think that I would love to close the door. I mean, I hate change,” Bicknell said with a laugh. “I hate losing this beauty. But something’s going to happen here.”
Lodge, like the others, just wants the development to have the least possible impact, and he has real concerns that drainage and flooding aren’t being addressed properly.
“The fact that Haw Creek ends up being the only channel carrying that on down through, and Haw Creek has three bridges to go under,” Lodge said. “Those are all potentially compromised by floodwater. And if this sets a precedent for how development is done, we see a big problem.”
What I’d like to see happen in these cases is exactly what these neighbors are asking for — more negotiations, more give-and-take, more willingness on the developers’ parts to keep huge old trees and preserve as much open space as possible. I’ll note that this development preserves nine acres of open space, with much of it the flood-prone area, and that’s better than a lot, and more than what’s required.
But how great would it be to have a woodland trail at the top of the neighborhood, as Pelly suggests? Can you try to make that work?
The neighbors in this case — and in many others I’ve covered over the years — feel the system is rigged in favor of the developers. And in many ways it is, as we are a country based on free enterprise and property rights.
Neighbors also feel that boards and councils don’t really listen to them, although I’ll note the Planning & Zoning board chair said the board had read every comment sent to them, and they did discuss the hot-button issues in this case, including tree canopy, sidewalks and connectivity.
Before voting, the commission added six conditions to the Meadows project, including that the developer agrees not to clear cut trees in the project’s buffer areas, that a greenway in the project will include a public use easement, and that they’ll add a signalized crosswalk from the townhomes across the street for safety, subject to NCDOT approval.
So there has been some give and take, but it’s not everything the neighbors want. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s never going to be.
Development like this is going to keep happening in Asheville, Buncombe and beyond, in part because we need the housing, in part because it’s the most economical to build and generates solid profits for developers.
But City Council and other bodies also should take the long view on this and really consider what they want our area to look like in 10 years or 20.
Kovacs told me she thinks that if the city approves this project as is, “they’re setting a precedent for Haw Creek and all of Asheville, just saying, ‘We’re just building houses, and we are not open to having reasonable discussions or planning them well.’”
“And that’s the thing — we need to plan Asheville well,” Kovacs said. “Otherwise, it’s going to be completely uncontrolled.”
It should be an interesting City Council meeting on April 23, to say the least.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. John Boyle has been covering Asheville and surrounding communities since the 20th century. You can reach him at (828) 337-0941, or via email at jboyle@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service please visit avlwatchdog.org/donate.
Nice article John.
As a Haw Creek resident I lament the nice grassy field becoming a development but also realize the fact that open land will be utilized to support the increase in folks moving here and needing homes. What I see as the heart of the matter is Kevin Jackson’s greed and “take no prisioners ” attitude towards compromise. My understanding is that somewhere around 30 less houses is the sweet spot for HCCA but to get the figures “to work” it can only be 95 as requested by Mr. Jackson. At somewhere around $5-600K for the townhouses and $7-800K for the uninspired houses he plans for, that works out to be a heavy greed factor. I understand profit is the underlying factor for Mr. Jackson, but his attitude of being the school yard bully and taking the stance that it is his ball and no one else can play truly sucks. City Council will most likely do what it always does- increase the tax base which is a shame for Haw Creek.
Welcome to the world of “production build”. Larger cities have been inundated with these because of their cost threshold and ease of construction. Ease of construction equates to builder profit. As always – follow the money!
You can blame developers all you want, but the real issue here is the ultra-conservative NIMBY neighborhoods that will allow no one but themselves to be housed. The NIMBY culture has resulted in a shocking lack of density in areas adjacent to downtown where density should prevail forcing developers to look into areas like Haw Creek for development. This is an escalating issue that will not be solved unless these NIMBY movements promote density in urban areas so more rural areas can be preserved. If not, expect more of this all over.
You make some good points, but one thing I notice is that the word NIMBY is thrown around *any time* anyone opposes development here–even in such cases of Haw Creek and/or other neighborhoods facing great environmental and societal destruction, even when there are traffic and safety/fire issues that warrant deeper study and consideration. I agree that development should happen along main corridors. So much vertical space above Ingle’s supermarkets and that Stein Mart wasteland on Merrimon Ave. How many cops and teachers (and low-wage Ingle’s employees) could be housed right there?
Jorge is exactly correct. And while people will be turned off by the phrase “ultra-conservative NIMBY neighborhoods”, they should not. Many people who consider themselves progressive (pro-choice, pro-living wage, in favor of gun control, etc.) will stand up and fight with an unmatched ferocity when it comes to this one issue : the threat of a high-density housing development near where they live.
Jorge, your comments seem to have political/racial overtones to it?
Right or wrong?
Nah, the real issue is developers’ greed. Although I agree that sprawl is unfortunately happening, it’s not b/c of “NIMBYs” (although it’s certainly easier and “cool” to blame “them”). Developments will sprawl out to the county/rural b/c the land is cheaper there, so developers can build even more for even less yet the housing will not necessarily be affordable. $$$$$$$$
Change is hard, as mentioned in the article. I greatly appreciated that you also mentioned that no one is from here unless you are Cherokee. I have this discussion all the time with communities that are resistant to change.
Firstly, there are no old growth trees in Haw Creek. Those were mowed down when the east coast was clearcut. If you want to see an actual old growth tree, visit Joyce Kilmer or head out west. Secondly, what do people think used to be growing in their own home’s footprint? I am all for keeping more trees around, and perhaps that is a better request to bring to the developer – Plant more trees in the community. When I hear neighbors expecting negotiations with a developer (who owns the property), it always makes me chuckle. We live in a capitalist society built on greed. The TDA machine (of our own creation) is spinning faster and faster with disregard to everything in its path. We created this scenario and then get mad when it affects us directly. To have a former Council Member tied up in this is almost poetic justice. What do people think will happen when you spend exorbitant amounts of money to get people to come here? Spoiler – They actually show up. My sympathy bleeds apathy.
Cherokees migrated here too… just considerably earlier than whites and blacks.
More intense development is inevitable and ultimately desirable. However, it can be done responsibly to preserve open spaces as much as possible. Why not concentrate townhouses in one area and surround that with open space and greenways.
This is yet another situation where it would be good to have a fairly strict tree ordinance in place. In my hometown even developers have to get individual permits to cut down each and every tree with a trunk diameter over a certain amount. The city also has strict drainage requirements and livability standards for developments. Such would make even more sense here where there is so much land that is not conducive to development.
Having moved back to the area after 27 years away, I see how little care both Asheville and Hendersonville have taken in maintaining the “feel” of the towns, opting to encourage development and money instead. There are ways to manage development more consciously, but those in power around here seem to think more building everywhere is the way to go. It’s really sad.
Certainly! Here’s a revised version of your commentary:
In Buncombe County and the city of Asheville, regulations are in place regarding tree removal and strict drainage requirements, alongside livability standards for developments. However, there is a concerning trend where the City Council and Planning Department appear to either ignore or circumvent these rules and regulations in favor of developments, regardless of their appropriateness for targeted neighborhoods.
Contrary to the notion of “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY), our concerns in Haw Creek extend beyond mere self-interest. Rather, we prioritize factors such as traffic impact, resident health and safety, environmental sustainability, and wildlife preservation. These are fundamental aspects of our community’s well-being, yet city dwellers may not always share the same values or consider these concerns with equal importance.
Unfortunately, it seems that the city’s officialdom lacks interest in preserving the very qualities that we hold dear. This disregard for the unique character and environmental integrity of our neighborhood is disheartening and threatens the quality of life for residents in Haw Creek.
In light of these challenges, it’s crucial for concerned citizens to come together and advocate for stricter enforcement of regulations and more conscientious decision-making in development projects. By raising awareness and actively engaging with local officials, we can strive to protect the integrity of our community and ensure a sustainable future for all residents.
Very well said. The (over)use of the word NIMBY is so often lazy, inaccurate and simply ignorant. Citizens would be foolish not to keep fighting for walkable neighborhoods and high quality of life.
I have a couple of practical concerns, even without going into environmental or neighborhood impact concerns.
Eight feet between houses is a fire hazard. Even Los Angeles requires 10 feet between houses. Anyone who’s lived there knows that distance is still a fire hazard, and you’re practically sitting inside your neighbor’s backyard when they have BBQ party night. The noise factor between houses even without parties is horrible.
The other concern I have is that the Haw River area is very prone to seasonal flooding. Some developers who’ve built other high-density developments in the general Asheville area have built without regard to seasonal river, stream, or creek swelling during rainy seasons.
We need more housing in this area but it needs to be done responsibly and, one would hope, affordably for people living here. I do have environmental and neighborhood impact concerns but I sadly doubt those will be successful at this point.
Unless serious effort is made to protect our forests and mountain sides from unchecked development, our ecosystem, which draws the hordes of humanity here, will be destroyed. Environmentalists and scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades. The plan in place now attempts to preserve 20% of forested land. That means 80% will be gone in short order. Wake up! Humans are the only species who willingly and actively destroy our own habitat. The Asheville area is being “loved” to death right before our eyes. A damn shame.
John, is Kevin Jackson developing this parcel to build his own homes?
I know DR Horton has subcontracted his services to develop land in other new communities around Asheville.
Do you know how much the cost will be for each home/townhome?
Kevin Jackson built the townhomes (Baldwin Commons) in South Asheville where my daughter lives. He did a great job making sure there was ample parking and some green space.
DR Horton is in the process of building a town home community just down from daughters called Virginia Commons.
WHAT A MESS! The owners can barely park a car on their driveway and there is no room to park on the street!
I encourage the folks from Haw Creek to check out both townhome neighborhoods before the next council meeting.
Little Boxes
Song by Pete Seeger
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky
Little boxes
Little boxes
Little boxes all the same
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
And the people in the houses all go to the university
And they all get put in boxes, little boxes all the same
And there’s doctors and there’s lawyers
And business executives
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same
And they all play on the golf course and drink their martini dry
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university
And they all get put in boxes, and they all come out the same
And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
And they all get put in boxes, little boxes all the same
There’s a green one, and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
Just an idea???
I think that a requirement for any new or greater than 80% remodel of commercial building include housing units .
If this were implemented the supply would increase dramatically. This floor of housing could be separated just like any condo to be managed by professional management.
No additional level land would have to be needed . All the older down town buildings were built like this prior to suburban sprawl.
30 years ago, when I first discovered Asheville, it was a special place unlike any of the many places I’d lived. It was uncrowded, covered in trees, liveable and authentic. All those qualities have been lost with the relentless drive by the City, County and BCTDA to drive more and more people here, and I often wonder if any of our elected officials understand how special this area was, and how the actions of they and their predecessors have hastened it’s ruin. Have they lived in the crowded, soul-sucking, treeless cities and suburbs that cover the US? Do they not recognize that Asheville was (and still could be?) different? Why are they so intent on turning Asheville into an overcrowded, characterless place that looks like every other city? Hold developers to a higher standard! If they can’t “make the numbers work” then they should build somewhere else vs. being allowed to destroy our mature forests with their greed. Those forests are part of what makes Asheville special. I fear that only when the quality of life here becomes as “average” as all the other overcrowded, concrete & building covered cities scattered across our nation will the poor development stop. Our elected officials need to wake up and demand more from the developers who are only interested in profit at the expense of those of us who live here.
Funny how they constantly lie about not being able to make numbers work while rolling up to building sites in their Mercedes suvs…
Do you realize only City Council can change the planning and zoning ordinance to help with density? Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance was approved by City Council in 1997 and has undergone few significant changes since. Its adoption reduced the density of approximately half of the multi-family zoned areas in Asheville. Seven thousand residential acres in Asheville were restricted to single-family housing only. They took up the issue back in 2015 and didn’t have the guts to update the ordinance then. https://ashevilleblade.com/?p=862
Excellent question! There is a world of difference between a local developer and the nations largest tract builder.
People deserve the truth about who is involved with a project of this size
I just believe like a boxing match, the fix is in.the city wants,needs tax monies to feed their programs. I don’t think any of council, mayor,et al, live in haw creek, travel to & from haw creek. Just follow the money. Local resident of Biltmore NC and haw creek resident for 51yrs.
I’ve read that Mills River was incorporated originally to fend off Asheville from swallowing it up and allowing rampant development. How times have changed. Farmers and other landowners are selling out as the costs of keeping farms is untenable, land is suddenly assessed for huge tax increases and offers to sell are too good to pass up. The town seems to green light everything, and can’t say no to beefing up the tax base. [We do have a lovely park and library, and a new Publix (Shhh) is in the pipeline, I’ll give them that] And it’s so convenient to have water lines hooked up since the water plant is right in the middle of town. I get it, “highest and best use,” growth is inevitable. But growth without context or control will doom WNC just like, say, South Florida, where it’s concrete from the beach west to the levee of the Everglades. Maybe that’s our fate. High rises on the edge of the rivers or by Pisgah National Forest offering ‘unparalleled views’ of what is covered up by all the new development. One of the newer communities in Mills River sits at 280 and Turnpike Road. It has spectacular oversized, multilevel charcoal painted homes cramped on postage stamp lots. On the former rolling hills of corn, you would see forever with a view of Mt Pisgah in the distance meeting the sky. Now I drive passed in the shadow of homes upwards of a million likely inhabited by no one who could afford them native to the area. They love racing their sporty BMWs and Mercedes passing thru established neighborhoods spooking daredevil pedestrians and increasing the roadkill of the disappearing wildlife. The least our city and county planners should do is prevent sprawl and contain development for all incomes near city centers and seriously account for the impact – not green light variances and fear the developer’s lawyers who are ready to sue because, well, you let this other developer get away with it before.
Greedy people destroying Gods land. Animals, dears, bears, are being forced out of their once wooded areas causing them to go into residential areas for food, which is very dangerous for our children animals, even ourselves. More trees we destroy the less oxygen is in the air. The more we destroy forests the less forage we have to make medicine and food. Yes you can find edible foods in forest. People are destroying God’s land and leaving nothing for the next generation. So sad.
And even the Cherokee came from somewhere else, if you go back far enough.
Make all the new people go away!
I am most concerned about the increased risk of flooding downstream due to the loss of mature trees and replacement by impervious surfaces. A single large mature tree can remove up to 150 gallons of water from soil every day in the summer. That keeps the soil prepared to accept water in times of heavy rainfall. Going from a 53% tree canopy of mature trees to a 17% tree “canopy” of mostly saplings would be equivalent to a nearly total loss of trees for the purpose of flood control. Add all the impervious surfaces covering much of the remaining soil, and this plan looks like a recipe for eventual flood disaster.
This is not a NIMBY opinion. I live in North Asheville.
What a miserable existence. Shoulder to shoulder with neighbors, and most likely an HOA with draconian rules, regarding your choice of paint colors, what shrubs are allowed, time limits on leaving garage doors open, etc.
The series of expansive Pond Road developments are a particular abomination because the road is a very, very narrow and curvy two-lanes with no shoulder on either side. The mind boggles at the prospect of morning and evening rush hour efforts to get out of the developments and get to work, the backups at the traffic signals at either end (Sardis Road and Brevard Road), not to mention if there’s an accident or even a flat tire.
Ahh, the eternal paradox, “I want housing , just not near me.”
There is a fixation with the houses but wait until the townhouses go up! There will be a 30 foot wall on New Haw Creek Road.
I suggested to the council to make the developer do the project in two phases to get everyone used to the change and confirm the developer would abide by their commitments.
I suggested that if they don’t like the idea that the City of Asheville have 2 inspectors on site to make sure they do and write citations for each failure.
The field is gone. The traffic during the school year and during dropoff and pick up times will be awful.
The value of non-Jackson property will go up because if he is doing market rate housing (I’ve heard $650K) then for those who have some property and have larger homes that don’t abut the property, we’ll stand to benefit financially.
However, life isn’t all about the Benjamins, is it. Except to the Council who sees it as more tax revenue and, of course, Jackson.
PS Whatever happened to affordable housing in the City’s thinking. They killed the Searitage project in the mall for insufficient housing as part of the plan and a vacant store sits there.
Despite the conditions imposed by planning, like leaving more trees & green space as a buffer, I have repeatedly seen how this interpreted when it comes to the actual development. Just take a look at all of the development along Sweeten Crk.
I was present at both the planning meeting & the city council meeting when the developer specified the amount of trees and buffer that would exist. However, what was removed looks like far more than what seemed to be approved.
Yes, we need more housing, but the short-sightedness of how we go about that definitely needs to change. The amount of trees we are losing, and the habitats that provide homes for a variety of wildlife is problematic. Not that anyone will listen as long as money continues to flow into the city & county coffers.