Housing committee recommends sale of city land and $1.6M loan for Oakhill townhomes after dispute over affordability

On June 16, 2026, the Asheville City Housing and Community Development Committee voted to recommend that City Council authorize a development and sale agreement with 29 Oakill LLC and approve a $1.6 million housing trust fund loan to support construction of a 42–unit townhome project on city-owned land at 290 Oak Hill Drive.

Affordable Housing Officer Sasha Bertinsky told the committee the proposal would build 42 town homes on the city parcel and “would be affordable to households at 80% to 110% AMI,” with land sold at a nominal price, 20-year deed restrictions, and a $1.6 million loan of which an estimated $750,000 would remain in the project as down-payment assistance in the form of silent second mortgages.

The recommendation was the product of months of negotiation after a June 2025 request for proposals. Bertinsky said the preferred team is a partnership between Eden Rock Enterprises and Dr. Steven Martin, submitted in the staff report as “29 Oakill LLC,” with Zelica Beerman advising staff. The proposed unit mix in staff materials called for 10 homes targeted to 80% AMI, 10 homes at 100% AMI and 22 homes at 110% AMI; staff described the homes as three-bedroom townhouses of roughly 1,200 square feet.

The committee’s discussion focused on whether the deal could produce lower-income buyers. Dr. Steven Martin, a developer on the project team, said deed restrictions in the proposal set upward affordability caps but would allow buyers below those caps to qualify and that achieving lower bands depends heavily on mortgage interest rates. “Everything we’ve run is at six and a quarter percent. If we can achieve three and a half percent, which Habitat thinks they may be able to help us do, then we could move that band down,” Martin said.

Public comment amplified that concern. Jessica Baltista, speaking for the Emma Neighborhood Council, said residents at a neighborhood meeting worried the project “does not” meet the neighborhood’s affordability needs and that “public land is one of the most powerful tools to support community priorities.” Baltista asked the committee to prioritize units that households earning 30%–50% AMI could access.

Committee members also sought technical clarifications about the financing model. Bertinsky outlined a phased construction approach in which the city’s loan would be repaid incrementally as homes close; the recycled repayment and the shared-appreciation design would replenish the housing trust fund for future buyers. She described example DPA amounts of $50,000 for 80% AMI buyers and $25,000 for 100% AMI buyers and noted those estimates may change with updated income limits and market costs.

Dr. Martin said the affordability gap to reach lower AMI bands is substantial. “We can do these at whatever AMI anybody wants. The gap just gets larger and larger. We can do these at 60% of AMI, but the gap is $188,000,” he said, describing the additional subsidy that would be required per unit to reach deeper levels of affordability.

Councilwoman Sage Turner proposed, and the committee adopted, amended motion language directing staff to negotiate terms that would seek to include affordable for-sale units ranging from 60% to 110% AMI and to authorize the $1.6 million construction loan, with the understanding that some portion of the loan would convert to down-payment assistance at sale. The motion was seconded and passed in roll call; Councilwoman Turner and Councilwoman Chenica Smith recorded votes in the roll call and the chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

Deputy City Attorney Janice Ashley cautioned that developers often need clear terms before final council consideration but said the committee could direct staff and the developer to pursue more specific financing and design options before a City Council hearing. Committee members asked staff to return to City Council with details on unit sizes, final AMI targeting, any energy-efficiency commitments and results of a technical traffic review tied to the conditional-zoning process for the adjacent market-rate units.

The committee’s recommendation will go to Asheville City Council for final action; staff said the project would also require a conditional-zoning review later this summer before construction could begin. Chair Antinet Mosley closed the meeting after confirming there were no further speakers in the queue.