[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6519967,"mediaKeyId","5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108","parentId",5340749,"title","Stern stormwater variance hearing continues amid dispute over social‑media contacts and alternate access options","audioSeconds",747,"startMs",4673000,"endMs",5420000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108&start=4673&end=5420","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108/thumbnail_4673000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6519967/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Stern-stormwater-variance-hearing-continues-amid-dispute-over-socialmedia-contacts-and-alternate-access-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519967-51843f98c944f61b3e9ecb872db1b24b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771111119&Signature=cOfxJOSedMoFXs5AsF4LpIdKoQg6Vwl05ksfruLG7y27UKLvOdEbjOYKNK2~aNdKLq9U5~Ob2OACB0FbV62JMXnqvHqhwN9bmSiWWVAgMSuJwPtjhq5-In983fr~-A1ZNlkeb8iH1JZn5hE2UCuXk7WBxaIVFjAMlxFw-dbt7qZDTJXdyPj~JlqhJgQS~cDdx3oGuUN2CWJH7aTm~Bupx6c6yWQIbtGeF-Kpv81OoIsSj-EJPIHM5NbBslj5GQGjRWLNCrEVaHPIXlPKwxT~5oV3zEJIxM1H~yKX9NxNAudn6XO-P6sWpLHpZisEv0imxmwRtLgZQ-FSV9EdCuYlUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Buncombe County, NC","date","2025-07-09T18:41:08Z","article","The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment continued its evidentiary review of a requested stormwater setback variance for property owned by Betsy and Allen Stern after extended testimony and cross‑examination revealed public contacts to board members, unresolved questions about alternative access routes, and pending engineering work.

At the start of the continued hearing on ZPH2025‑00005, staff disclosed that a Reddit post and Facebook postings about the case had appeared and that some board members’ phone numbers had been published; several members acknowledged receiving phone calls and text messages. Chair Andy Ball and staff emphasized the quasi‑judicial nature of the board and reminded members that “only evidence presented at the hearing can be considered” in a variance decision.

Savannah Glantz (planning staff) and Victoria Hoyland (county stormwater engineer) then provided technical context. Hoyland explained the distinction in state and county stormwater rules between low‑density and high‑density water‑quality standards and said the key question is whether impervious surface inside the vegetated 30‑foot setback may be allowed only if the site meets the higher (high‑density) treatment standards. As Hoyland summarized, “treatment is where the water passes through what’s called a primary stormwater control measure,” which can include bioretention, sand filters, infiltration systems or wet ponds.

The variance request seeks permission for a driveway to encroach into a 30‑foot vegetated setback adjacent to a stream; under low‑density rules the setback generally must remain vegetated, while high‑density rules allow built upon area in a setback only if the new impervious runoff is treated to the higher standard.

Neighbors and interested parties offered testimony and cross‑examination about alternate driveway alignments. Paul David Mount, a contractor who testified he has 42 years of grading experience, described two alternative access alignments he and others showed the applicant years ago and said both would avoid the stream setback and be feasible to construct. Mount testified that he met with the applicant to discuss routes and that he reported pricing for one option to the applicant. Mount said one alternative would run up a ravine and another would switchback up a ridge; “they both was good options,” he said.

A neighboring property owner who has raised concerns about erosion and silt fencing on-site testified that he had offered a strip of his land to provide an alternate easement at no charge, and that he had sent the applicant a certified letter informing him he had hired an engineer to map a new route (the witness told the board the engineering estimate is roughly six weeks). The letter was admitted into the record as an exhibit; the witness said he had not received a response.

Applicant counsel and other parties objected at times to particular lines of questioning, and the board made several evidentiary rulings on the record. Counsel for the applicant told the board the applicant was monitoring remotely and that he could be contacted to accept conditions if the board moved to a decision. County staff cautioned the board that whether an alternate access would solve the stormwater issue cannot be determined without engineering and surveying work because the county’s steep‑slope and disturbed‑area limits (no more than 15% disturbance and 8% impervious for lots over 2 acres) might preclude some alternative routes.

No final ruling was made at the July hearing. Several participants asked for additional time to produce engineer‑prepared route maps and disturbance calculations; one party said an engineer estimated about six weeks to prepare a plan. The board did not announce a final decision and continued the matter for further evidence. Staff and parties were instructed to present any new survey or engineering exhibits when the case is resumed.

The board also made a formal record of the ex parte disclosures that several members received calls or saw social‑media posts; members who had been contacted stated on the record that no substantive information from those contacts would be considered and that they had not read the social‑media posts in full. The board restated that its decision must be based on the evidence admitted in the hearing.

The Stern case raises two distinct technical questions going forward: whether an acceptable engineered stormwater treatment measure can be installed to allow impervious surface within the vegetated setback under high‑density standards, and whether an alternate access route outside the buffer can be designed that complies with Buncombe County steep‑slope and disturbance limits. Parties present said they would return with additional engineering and survey data.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Adjustment Meeting | July 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment continued its evidentiary review of a requested stormwater setback variance for property owned by Betsy and Allen Stern after testimony and cross‑examination revealed public contacts to board members, unresolved questions about alternative access routes, and pending engineering work.","taxTitle","Buncombe County, North Carolina","taxId",3914,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6519971,"Board OKs special‑use permit to allow weddings at Asheville River Cabins with limits and safety conditions",1700,2141000,3841000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108&start=2141&end=3841","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108/thumbnail_2141000.jpg","/articles/6519971/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Board-OKs-specialuse-permit-to-allow-weddings-at-Asheville-River-Cabins-with-limits-and-safety-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519971-f1dda93e0dba6548d692e441bc97b6e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771111119&Signature=FoYzdqrM6ATy9GXRPavD43MeZf2KkE5d2UbXapZFq~~eM645FyKDpc3xHxa7VT~9q2KVIas4eZgAZhyDFetsc1sNKHT9zqmTiUv-1ZXfd7n01rleUzC6OqKtB7Ep-csOqfSQ6mygTCW4jUvh6Q5GiYrVnuoayoAJ7tva4v9BMjOksuOrsz8cW6fxUxZSL0jF68ZdrxM7scCx62nmzd9JUFIslsowVrX~S2wLO0ZxTiJruT7sEjwBnU9-5y6dpRxskbAzbhcVsM~V7kqkfnhJDflzs9Lke~jlktANT~wC26QGiuS-vIh-XgCS4ianV~WNzEItSwz9D5kN4XqyT1EKMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment approved a special‑use permit permitting weddings and related events at Asheville River Cabins, a travel‑trailer ‘‘glamping’’ resort in Arden, restricted to guests and subject to a series of conditions intended to address public‑safety and environmental concerns.

Staff presented ZPH2025‑00008, saying the 8.72‑acre property at 318 Wanderlust Ridge is zoned Public Service and is partially in the floodplain. Savannah Glantz, presenting for staff, told the board the requested commercial service classification would allow weddings or events but recommended conditions to address access, safety and environmental controls. Glantz noted that events with more than 100 people would require a special‑event permit from the Buncombe County Fire Marshal and that tents over 800 square feet must be separately permitted.

Attorney Bob Oost and owner Brett Turner described Asheville River Cabins as an operating travel‑trailer nightly‑rental facility that the owner markets as a glamping resort. Turner said the property has been operated since February 2021 and that improvements added 30 rental units with an expected build‑out of 43. He said the River Lodge amenity and a community green near the river are the likely locations for any ceremonies, and that most wedding guests typically stay on site.

Oost emphasized the requested permit was “limited to weddings and including, ceremonies and receptions” for guests of the travel‑trailer park, and that the operation is not a full‑time commercial wedding venue. Turner told the board: “Most of our wedding parties don’t have a ceremony on‑site. Most of them are just parties that rent out cabins, and then they have a wedding at the church down the road.” He added that when ceremonies occur they typically use the community green in front of the River Lodge.

The board asked staff and the applicant questions about floodplain exposure, septic and waste handling, and food service. Glantz and the applicant confirmed environmental health and the county floodplain administrator had reviewed the site; Glantz also agreed on the record to revise a staff condition to require approval (not just notification) from MSD Pretreatment for any on‑site food preparation.

The board adopted written findings that the proposed limited commercial use would not adversely affect health and safety, public welfare, or surrounding properties if the stated conditions are met. The order records conditions the board included on the record: events must be limited to guests of the travel‑trailer park; events with more than 100 people require a special‑events permit from the Fire Marshal; any tent over 800 square feet requires a Fire Marshal permit; any on‑site food preparation during events must receive approval from MSD Pretreatment regarding fats, oils and grease; the project must be constructed as depicted in the site plan; and prior to land‑disturbing activity the applicant must submit a full site development plan showing building locations, lighting, buffering, retaining walls, easements, and approved E‑911 road names.

The applicant agreed in writing to the conditions before work begins. The board approved the special‑use permit by voice vote and directed staff to prepare a formal order for signature.

The condition that events be limited to guests was stated on the record; the applicant told the board he would cap attendance at 100 guests and that additional parking is limited to roughly 10–12 spaces beyond on‑site cabin parking, so most attendees would be staying on the property.","Buncombe County Board of Adjustment approved a special‑use permit allowing wedding ceremonies and receptions for guests at Asheville River Cabins, subject to conditions including MSD approval for on‑site food preparation, fire‑marshal permits for events over 100 attendees and site‑plan requirements.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6519976,"Board approves Laurelwood Village Phase 2 special‑use permit to add four townhomes",749,1084000,1833000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108&start=1084&end=1833","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340749-59297bf972686d08451d7c026ea62108/thumbnail_1084000.jpg","/articles/6519976/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Board-approves-Laurelwood-Village-Phase-2-specialuse-permit-to-add-four-townhomes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519976-d37148bd548600ef2813b9c3ebd268b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771111119&Signature=al24xdMXTFTTSh7NpnWZq0ESrq75Iukr8IV4s5kY2pba1Cs4go0qifkpnLo~3rLv1XNPGzUOKx8KNchASv~yqGAWSTGg9ZKZd-HdDhFHjXabEzs7I2qRxRbdEL0zM3FU0mXcgFJpMyPF29iZojMTxT7O9ufZQy4PmXSGLCf1NPG0WL3r2yon4GgY7g4hoakH7O3Ci72MvpFIUUATfhL6xOtK89Mmmye-WahQr6Ang-T9cpc3zNSMSpiYI4ST4QS8yH3IbsoEkFjcxp~rAO2Vz8zhN4FHrfoTtsrDGUd4bEaWxeLqVYkLZ2T9oxF4dfVeTi0ZQVoOUsTtXmrRXk6Kkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment on a voice vote approved a special‑use permit revision allowing Laurelwood Village Phase 2 to add four townhome units to an already approved planned unit development.

The revision, filed as ZPH2025‑00009 by Tim Fleischauer of Sam Howard Properties LLC, covers a roughly 4‑acre open‑space parcel off Hartleaf Circle in South Asheville. Staff described the request as a second phase that would add four townhome units in the western portion of the parcel and would require reduced setbacks, smaller lots and a reduced building separation to match the existing townhome pattern.

Jason Payne, a planning staff member, summarized the application and the staff recommendation. Payne said the request is “consistent with those deviations” made for the original phase and that the parking requirements are satisfied. He recommended approval with conditions including that a major subdivision plat be submitted, recorded and shown in Buncombe County GIS before site‑plan review and that the plat show a legally deeded easement connection to the private road Waitstill Drive.

Michael Goforth of High Country Engineering, representing the developer, told the board the four new units would be similar to the buildings already on site and would be accessed through two shared private driveways off Waitstill Drive. Goforth answered board questions about retaining walls, saying the rear wall near the Duke Power easement would be about 15 feet tall and another between units would be roughly 4–6 feet tall.

A board member moved the findings of fact and later moved approval of the special‑use permit. The board voted in favor; the motion carried and the chair directed staff to present a formal order incorporating the conditions discussed at the hearing.

Conditions the board included in the approval (as stated on the record) require: submittal and recording of a major subdivision plat with new pins reflected in Buncombe County GIS prior to site‑plan application; demonstration of a legally deeded easement to Waitstill Drive; construction consistent with the submitted site plan; submission of a site development plan depicting exact building locations, retaining walls, landscaping and easements prior to land‑disturbing activity; and copies of any required permits from state or federal agencies (Army Corps, NCDOT, NCDEQ) where applicable. The order also notes that each building within the PUD will still require its own individual site‑plan permit.

The applicant and staff accepted the conditions on the record. The board adopted written findings that the proposal meets the Buncombe County Code provisions for planned‑unit development and special‑use permits and directed the county attorney to prepare an order reflecting the board’s decision.

The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the public record; the approval was taken by voice vote and announced as passed.

The developer must complete the plat and site‑plan steps required by the conditions before construction proceeds.","The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment approved a special‑use permit revision to add four townhomes to the existing Laurelwood Village development, granting reduced lot size and building‑separation standards subject to conditions including a recorded subdivision plat and easement to Waitstill Drive.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Stern stormwater variance hearing continues amid dispute over social‑media contacts and alternate access options

Board OKs special‑use permit to allow weddings at Asheville River Cabins with limits and safety conditions

Board approves Laurelwood Village Phase 2 special‑use permit to add four townhomes