Neighbors contest Stern driveway variance; hearing continued after standing dispute

The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment heard extended testimony, rival claims and standing challenges on a stormwater variance request for a Fairview property before continuing the matter to a later meeting to allow parties to explore alternate access options.

Planning staff said the application, filed as ZPH2025-00005, seeks permission to allow a driveway to encroach into a 30-foot vegetative stream setback on a 10.1-acre parcel at 99999 Old Fort Road in Fairview that is served by well and septic and located in the steep-slope overlay. Planning coordinator Savannah Glantz said the property is zoned open-use and that the proposal stems from limited deeded access: “The access to this property is limited to a deeded right of way that is less than 30 feet landward of the surface water,” she said.

Victoria Hoyland, the county’s stormwater engineer, told the board the county’s low-density stormwater rules generally prohibit built-upon area within 30 feet of a stream bank and allow only limited, near-perpendicular crossings where impacts are minimized. “They are proposing a driveway within the vegetated setback in a manner that is inconsistent with what we typically will approve,” Hoyland said. She added that the existing logging road alignment and where the easement was placed make a perpendicular crossing infeasible in this case.

Applicant Alan Stern and his engineer, Wyatt Edsall, offered plans and a grading/stormwater package intended to meet Buncombe County erosion-control and low-density stormwater standards, with two specific sections of the access road identified as encroaching into the vegetative setback. Edsall, a licensed professional engineer, testified he prepared erosion-control and stormwater plans and that the design provides low-density stormwater peak-flow attenuation and standard erosion-control details, but that the proposed driveway alignment still places impervious surface within the stream buffer and therefore requires a variance.

Neighbors opposed the request and several sought party status. Gina Maselli and Thomas Miceli, residents at 1419 Old Fort Road, described erosion and sedimentation they attributed to past work on the uphill access and expressed concern about future debris flows and safety. “The stream the stream that that is involved in this variance flows from that property onto my property, and through my property into Echo Lake,” Gina Maselli said, describing sediment deposits she said followed the hurricane event called Helene.

Adjacent landowner William (Bill) Wilkie testified he owns parcels that flank the Stern property and said the logging-road grading and lack of proper erosion controls contributed to sediment reaching his and others’ parcels. Wilkie said he had offered an alternative route across a portion of his land near the subdivision entrance and described meeting with grading contractors who examined that potential alignment. Wilkie told the board the alternative route would be “less steep” and stay farther from the stream; he testified he had not recorded an easement but said he had made an offer to Stern verbally.

Stern and his engineers said they had investigated alternate access and determined the southeast corner of the lot was topographically infeasible for access to the proposed home site; Edsall said the contours and steep-slope overlay make that option impracticable without major retaining work. Edsall said the plans submitted would meet low-density stormwater criteria except for the deeded-easement constraint that places part of the driveway in the buffer.

The board considered standing applications from multiple neighbors. After questioning, the board denied standing for Gina Maselli — she will be able to testify as a witness — but granted party standing to William Wilkie, who the board determined had sufficiently specific, distinct interests as a neighboring owner whose property and driveway are directly tied to the easement and the work in question.

Board members and staff discussed options short of approval, including redesigning to high-density stormwater standards (which would impose different treatment requirements) or seeking alternate access agreements. Victoria Hoyland noted certain water-quality mitigation measures might be added if the board approved a variance — for example, additional outlet protection or energy dissipators — but that placement of impervious area in the buffer remains the primary regulatory barrier under low-density rules. Hoyland also flagged trout-water considerations that can require additional cooling or treatment of runoff.

After several hours of testimony and cross-examination, the board voted to continue the hearing to a future meeting (date set by the board) to allow the parties to confer about alternative access options and to give staff and the applicant time to respond to technical issues raised during testimony. The board instructed the parties to attempt to meet and explore alternatives before the next hearing.