Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs fee exemption for lot mergers that reduce density

5941911 · October 14, 2025

Summary

The General Committee voted Oct. 14 to forward a resolution establishing a fee exemption for lot merger applications that create a public benefit by reducing density, with planning department discretion on eligibility.

Hendersonville’s General Committee voted Oct. 14 to forward Resolution 2025‑38, which recognizes the public benefit of some lot mergers and establishes a fee exemption for applications that demonstrably reduce density.

Staff told the committee the intent is to incentivize developers or property owners to reduce parcel density where appropriate. The resolution as discussed would waive the application fee for qualifying lot‑merger cases; staff estimated the current fee to merge two lots is roughly $980.

Committee members asked whether the exemption could cover merges larger than two‑to‑one; staff said the way the resolution is written gives the planning department discretion to apply the waiver to other configurations where a public benefit (such as reduced density or traffic) would result. The staff explanation clarified that fee waivers would apply only in cases where the merger yields a verifiable public benefit; if a proposed merger does not reduce density, the fee would not be waived.

The committee voted by voice to forward the resolution to BOMA with a positive recommendation.

Next steps: BOMA will consider Resolution 2025‑38. If adopted, the planning department will apply the fee exemption in qualifying cases and track usage of the waiver.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source