Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inca Trail Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and Connect Inca urge enforcement of greenway easements and call for accountability from property owners
Summary
Several public commenters, including members of Connect Inca and Connect Anka, urged the commissioners to ensure easements and developer commitments for the Inca Heritage Trail are enforceable and questioned how a property owner had avoided obligations under a 2014 Greenway Easement Grant Agreement.
Multiple residents and local advocates addressed the board during public comment urging stronger enforcement of easements and commitments tied to the Inca Heritage Trail.
Terry Scholl (identified as a Connect Anka member) recounted the group's long-term vision for a safe, walkable trail connecting schools and neighborhoods and read excerpts from city council records about a proposed greenway along Hominy Creek. "We envisioned a safe walking and biking space, a place where community members could get together and socialize," she said.
Mel Scholl delivered three points on behalf of Terry, urging the county to consider the Connect Buncombe master plan in future multimodal planning, making contracts enforceable so developers must fulfill obligations, and recommending that the county recognize "that Martin Lewis, Anka Youth Sports Organization, and Anka Partners did not act in good faith and does not allow any additional funding, including TDA, to them or their associated businesses." That assertion is an allegation made by a public commenter and was not resolved during the meeting.
Rob Denton, president of Connect Inca, read sections of the "Greenway Easement Grant Agreement" dated 09/02/2014 and said the county had previously agreed to $1,300,000 in funding and that the Inca sports organization was to secure $2,400,000 from the Tourism and Development Authority. Denton asked how the property owner Martin Lewis had avoided the terms of that written agreement.
Commissioners listened during public comment and staff were invited to accept written follow-ups; no formal board action on the easement dispute was recorded at the meeting.
