Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adjacent owners granted standing in Sweeten Creek case; board orders 60‑day continuance for engineering responses
Summary
The board granted standing to an adjacent property trust that raised stormwater and grading concerns about the proposed Sweeten Creek apartment project and voted to continue the matter 60 days so neighbors can retain engineering experts to assess alleged impacts.
The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment granted standing May 13 to adjacent property owners in the continued Sweeten Creek (Carroll) special‑use proceeding and voted to continue the hearing for 60 days to allow the parties time to prepare expert testimony.
Chris Major, attorney for the Sarah Jane Sumer revocable trust, asked the board to recognize standing for the trust because two proposed buildings would sit on the ridge above the trust’s property and the preliminary grading and retaining‑wall plans showed disturbance up to the property line. "They would ask that they be found to have standing to be heard on this matter," Major said during the standing request.
Applicant counsel Derek Allen pushed back that standing requires credible allegations of special damages that are unique to a property. "There needs to be credible allegations of special damages," he told the board, noting the applicant had conducted outreach and provided plans and survey materials. The trust asked for time to retain engineers and argued that getting a qualified MAI or engineering expert required months of scheduling, with one neighbor saying, "90 days is the minimum amount of time that we need for this." (Adam Sameer).
Board members debated competing fairness and timing concerns. Some members said 30 days was sufficient for a focused engineering review of the applicant’s materials; others thought 60 or 90 days could be justified given scheduling constraints for expert witnesses. After failing to approve a 90‑day continuance, the board approved a 60‑day continuance by majority vote and confirmed a date‑certain return to the board calendar.
The continuance preserves the trust’s right to prepare expert stormwater and site‑specific analyses and allows the applicant to proceed with rebuttal evidence at the continued hearing. The board also recorded an on‑the‑record objection from the applicant reserving the right to contest the standing finding in later proceedings.
