Board of Adjustment Meeting | Nov. 12, 2025

On November 12, 2025, the Buncombe County Board of Adjustment convened for a regular meeting to address administrative matters and hear public cases regarding zoning variances and special use permits. The session covered the approval of previous minutes, the election of a Vice Chair, and decisions on four distinct development and property cases. All recorded votes were unanimous, with a 7-0 tally for each motion.

The Board began with administrative actions, approving the minutes from the October 8, 2025 meeting and electing Craig Allen to the position of Vice Chair. Planning Director Nathan Pennington provided an update on future quasi-judicial procedure training for newly appointed members. No conflicts of interest or ex-parte communications were disclosed during the administrative segment.

The first public hearing concerned ZPH2025-00031, a flood variance request for the Biltmore Market Gardener’s Cottage. The applicant sought relief from the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to repair a historic structure damaged by Hurricane Helene. Testimony from experts in historic preservation, civil engineering, and floodplain management explained that further elevation or relocation of the building would jeopardize its status as a contributing structure to a National Historic Landmark and compromise structural integrity. The Board voted 7-0 to adopt the findings of fact, 7-0 to approve the variance, and 7-0 to approve the order.

The second case, ZPH2025-00028, involved a Special Use Permit for the Beacon Ridge Multifamily project, a 170-unit development on two parcels off US 70 Highway. Presenters discussed the unit composition, financing through the NC Housing Finance Authority, and a traffic impact analysis which concluded that existing turn lanes were adequate. While one non-party witness disputed the traffic testimony, citing high volumes and exit issues, the Board noted that the County would confer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation regarding potentially lowering the speed limit on US 70. The Board voted 7-0 to adopt the findings of fact, 7-0 to approve the Special Use Permit, and 7-0 to approve the order.

The third case, ZPH2025-00033, addressed a Special Use Permit for a 22-unit single-family development at 2544 Hendersonville Road. The hearing included standing determinations for two individuals, Brenda Smith and Jerry Nesbitt, both of whom were denied standing by a 7-0 vote due to a lack of evidence of special damages. Despite the denial of standing, Ms. Smith provided witness testimony regarding a boundary dispute and property value concerns, while Mr. Nesbitt requested a continuance. Board members expressed concerns that the presentation did not thoroughly address impacts on surrounding properties or waterways, but the Board determined the applicant had established a prima facie case. The Board voted 7-0 to adopt the findings of fact, 7-0 to approve the Special Use Permit, and 7-0 to approve the order.

The final agenda item was ZPH2025-00032, a variance request for a manufactured home at 90 Hazelwood Road. The Board discussed procedural delays, including site plan review errors and the applicant’s travel abroad on the originally scheduled hearing date. Concerns were raised regarding communication gaps between the applicant’s representative and the client, as well as the need for interpretation services. The Board voted 7-0 to continue the case to the December 10, 2025 regular meeting, with a potential continuance to January 14 if the December date proves unsuitable.

Staff members agreed to several follow-up actions following the meeting. Staff will contact the applicant for the Villa variance case to confirm their preferred hearing date between December 10 and January 14. Additionally, staff will coordinate interpreter services for the December 10 meeting and address communication concerns between the applicant’s representative and the client. The applicant is also expected to coordinate with the county to provide interpreter services for a Spanish-speaking party involved in the Villa variance case and to address missing information, including an appraisal and water impact study, for future consideration.