Board approves setback variance for mobile home at 90 Hazelwood Road over neighbor objections

The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to grant a dimensional variance allowing a manufactured home to be sited closer to the road than the ordinance normally allows at 90 Hazelwood Road.

The request, presented by Walter Lucas of Titan Factory Direct, asked the board to reduce the county’s 10-foot setback to 4 feet so a 24-by-52 mobile home can be placed on a 0.28-acre lot. Staff told the board the site-plan review and initial building permit had been approved and later flagged during a permit renewal when reviewers discovered the setback inconsistency. Lucas said that the site-plan review omitted a right-of-way from the survey, that the buyer closed a loan in reliance on the county approvals and that the buyer faces financial obligations if the placement cannot proceed.

Neighbor Chrissy Lytle, who was granted standing, contrasted that account. Sworn testimony and photo exhibits submitted by Lytle and her counsel described an excavation on the adjacent lot that she said created "approximately 14 feet" of disturbance, exposed a power line and eroded a bank such that emergency medical services could not access her home. Lytle said the condition has already damaged a driveway she used for 26 years and would be made worse if the home were moved forward toward her property.

Board members questioned both sides about the timeline of approvals, the date the loan closed (applicant materials show a loan closing on Oct. 18, 2024) and when the county discovered the setback error (staff recorded the building permit as having expired in 2025 while attempting a renewal). The applicant relied on a signed statement from a commercial mover that, according to Lucas, said the home could be removed if necessary.

In deliberations, several board members said the relevant hardship analysis centers on whether the strict application of the code would cause an undue hardship, and whether that hardship resulted from the applicant’s own actions. Multiple members said they saw the hardship as arising from reliance on earlier county approvals rather than from intentional conduct by the buyer or seller. The motion to approve the variance passed unanimously and staff was instructed to draft an order consistent with that motion.

The board also admitted neighborhood letters and photographs into the record documenting erosion and neighbor objections but noted the limits of hearsay for some submitted materials. The order approving the variance will reflect the board’s findings of fact and any agreed conditions; the chair and staff will execute the written order.

The board’s action was procedural and not a resolution on the factual claims about past unpermitted work; those factual disputes remain in the record as exhibits and testimony. The board’s vote completed the quasi‑judicial proceeding on this variance request at this meeting.