Hendersonville aldermen pass first reading of 9-month moratorium on high-density residential projects, 11-1

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Hendersonville on Aug. 12 passed first reading of Ordinance 2025-14, imposing a nine-month moratorium on acceptance, review and approval of applications and permits for high-density residential developments in the city. The motion passed 11-1; Alderman Evans cast the only vote against the ordinance.

Supporters said the moratorium will give the city time to review impact fees, infrastructure needs and related capital projects before additional high-density projects move forward. Alderman Sassy, a co-sponsor, told the board the pause is a “critical step” to protect traffic, parks, emergency services and stormwater systems and to complete an impact-fee study so new projects align with the city’s vision.

Opponents, including developer David Lucky and Alderman Evans, said the moratorium risks sending a message that Hendersonville is difficult to work with and could discourage investment. Lucky, who identified himself as a local property owner and developer, said the city’s Westlake overlay and earlier planning efforts were designed to attract redevelopment, and a pause could remove incentive for projects that the city previously encouraged. Evans told the board many young professionals cannot afford single-family homes in Hendersonville and said multifamily options are needed to keep that population in the city.

Legal counsel Lance told the board there is no simple legal answer: a moratorium that removes the full use and benefit of private property can carry the risk of inverse-condemnation claims. He said courts would examine whether the moratorium serves a valid governmental purpose and whether it is reasonable in duration.

Planning staff and director-level speakers answered questions about the moratorium’s scope. Director Free said the city has seen few vacant parcels already zoned for the proposed density; staff identified two vacant parcels currently zoned to allow the high density described in the ordinance. Free and other planning staff clarified that projects already vested or in active planned developments would not be affected. Board members discussed specific local examples during the debate, including the Grace Place and Near Water projects; staff said Near Water’s density is about 7.99 units per acre and that some planned developments measure density across the entire site (including roads and open space).

Alderman Robertson asked staff to prepare an exhibit for the second reading showing (a) currently vested properties that the moratorium would not touch and (b) properties that are not vested that could be affected. Robertson requested that exhibit be available before the next meeting. The board also amended the ordinance to add “public schools” to the list of infrastructure and services cited in the ordinance’s whereas clauses; that amendment passed 11-1 with Alderman Evans opposed.

Board members who spoke in favor emphasized constituent concern about traffic and strain on city services; those opposed or hesitant cited potential long-term effects on economic development and on housing availability for younger residents. Several members urged reliance on the planning department and planning commission’s project-by-project review instead of a blanket pause, while others said a time-limited pause is the proper response to a surge in development.

The ordinance as drafted targets developments meeting a specified density threshold (8 units per acre) and applies only to acceptance, review and approval of new applications and permits during the nine-month period. The board did not set a specific calendar date for second reading during public comment at the meeting; the mayor and staff said they will confirm timing and whether a public hearing will be required.

Next steps recorded at the meeting include staff preparing the vested/non-vested property exhibit before the next meeting and the board scheduling the ordinance for second reading. The moratorium remains a first-reading action; it will not be final until a subsequent formal adoption vote.