Hendersonville aldermen reject purchase of right-of-way for Drakes Creek area after heated debate

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Hendersonville voted 5–8 on Jan. 14 to reject Resolution 2024-47, a measure to approve the purchase of right-of-way at or near the junction of Drakes Creek Road, Avant Lane, Countryside Drive and Anderson Road.

The item drew multiple public comments and extended aldermanic debate about the project’s cost, public notice and whether the city should buy land now to preserve options for future transportation or wait for a traffic-engineering report. Alderman Eddie Robertson sponsored an amendment to fund the purchase from developer contributions tied to Durham Farms; that amendment passed 10–3, but the main resolution failed on final roll call.

Why it matters: Supporters said buying the parcels now would lock in a negotiated price and create options for stormwater and future access improvements; opponents said the city should not spend limited funds on land for a project that has not yet been designed and that residents’ property rights and public notice must be respected.

Public commenters pressed aldermen from multiple neighborhoods. Charles Kimbrough of Durham Farms urged caution, saying the roundabout would “be financially harmful” to nearby homeowners and argued the larger traffic volume is the root cause of collision risk rather than the intersection geometry. Kara Kimbrough (Anderson Road) called the purchase “a waste of taxpayer money” if the project is uncertain and questioned whether the city could afford land acquisitions tied to projects that may not proceed.

Aldermen gave several reasons for and against the purchase. Mayor Jamie Clary framed the purchase as fiscally prudent, saying buying land “before the cost goes up” can be responsible; Alderman Eddie Robertson called it an “insurance policy” that would preserve options for stormwater management and access improvements, and argued the city had an ethical obligation to follow through with owners who negotiated sales. Robertson offered the amendment to pay the $82,000 purchase from Durham Farms contribution accounts so “not 1 penny” of general tax revenue would be used.

Opponents, including Aldermen Burgdorf, Skidmore and Martin during debate, urged waiting for results of an advertised traffic study and a consultant design. Several aldermen questioned whether the parcels under consideration were larger than what would be required for a minimal road widening or turn-lane alternative and whether temporary easements could meet stormwater or construction needs without full acquisition.

City staff explained the timing and funding details as discussed in the meeting. Sarah (City staff) said the city has solicited proposals for a design and traffic analysis and expected an evaluation and recommendations in several months. Finance director Tamara said appraisals and offers already exist for the owner tracts in the resolution and that the amount requested in the resolution was $82,000. Alderman Autumn Collins noted recent appraisal work: the most recent round cost roughly $9,000 per tract for appraisal and review.

On the question of funds available, speakers gave differing figures in public discussion. At one point a staff member said roughly $600,000 was held in reserve for Drakes Creek-area off-site improvements; Tamara later described a lower reserve figure “around $275,000 to $300,000” when pressed on available balances. Those figures were discussed in the meeting and attributed to city staff during the public exchange; the transcript does not record a single definitive final number that the board adopted on the floor.

Votes and formal actions: - Amendment to Resolution 2024-47 (fund purchase from Durham Farms developer contributions): moved by Alderman Eddie Robertson; seconded by Alderman Evans. Amendment vote: passed 10–3 (Ayes among those recorded during the roll call for the amendment included Aldermen Ward, Sassy, Garza, Dixon, Goodwin, Garton, Collins, Robertson and Evans; three aldermen voted no). - Final vote on Resolution 2024-47 (purchase of right-of-way): failed 5–8 on roll call. The chair called the roll and announced the measure failed.

Board members stressed process and communication as matters for follow-up. Some aldermen said the city should respect deals struck with property owners; others said the city must avoid spending additional resources until it receives the contracted traffic-engineering recommendations, which staff estimated could take roughly three to four months to complete. Several speakers, including residents, asked the city to restore or increase public notice around any future related agenda items. Alderman Robertson said he would personally notify residents if the item returned to the agenda.

The board then moved to subsequent agenda items without further purchases related to this resolution.

Ending note: The board’s vote leaves existing options open while directing staff to complete the advertised design and traffic analysis. The resolution’s defeat means the city will not proceed with the agreed purchase as presented on Jan. 14; members who opposed the purchase urged a pause for a design-based decision, while supporters said acquiring the land would preserve options for stormwater and future access improvements.