City Council Contacts
Email all 7 Council Members
Send Letters to the Editor

Contact Developers Directly:

Related References:

Council Meeting Minutes 8/24/04

City Clerk's Contact info

Montford Community Forum
Montford Neighborhood

Sales Site for Campus Crest

Contact:

If you have information that should be on this site, or corrections to information displayed please contact us.

In the light of our City Council's lack of adequate representation of the people of Asheville, the organizers of ourasheville.org hope to create a forum where both the shortcomings and the exceptional positive efforts of individual council members can be highlighted and used as an information and education resource for those who wish to help keep our great city on the right path for all of its residents, not just big business.

To keep up to date please subscribe to the mail list.

Community meeting to discus restitution options to present to council:

Where:
Montford Community Center

When:
Feb 7th at 7 p.m.

Who:
Concerned Citizens of Asheville and residents of Montford.

Campus Crest Development - Montford Neighborhood

PROBLEM
A developer's spokesman lied to the Asheville City Council and the general public, under oath, three times in a row, last August. He said that an 80 foot wide vegetated buffer on the property of the planned Campus Crest apartment complex WOULD BE LEFT INTACT (see meeting excerpt below). He showed photos from different nearby house lots and repeated the pledge. When site work started, the developer immediately cut down most of the buffer and bulldozed the area.

SECOND PROBLEM
With few exceptions, the vast majority of the Asheville City Council and Staff are unwilling to enforce the conditions set out in a quasi-judicial hearing. Even those councilors most perturbed by perjury and lack of accountability are unwilling to block the development and most are unwilling to EVEN FINE THE DEVELOPER. Instead they have settled for meetings between the developer and neighbors to design some form of restitution.

OBVIOUS ANSWER
Chief Planner Scott Shuford told Council and the press, apparently without
irony, that the replanted buffer will hide the development when the vegetation
is mature. Perhaps the community should simply prohibit the developer from beginning construction until the neighbors in the viewshed agree that the buffer is mature. If the developer is in a hurry, larger trees can be hauled in. Even fully mature trees are routinely moved for swanky golf clubs and high-end mansion developments. If the developer is in less of a hurry, perhaps fifteen years to contemplate three counts of perjury would be a more appropriate course of action. It might even seem like a light sentence to a hundred year old tree.

COUNCIL'S ACTION SO FAR
The council did decide to ask the developer to meet with the neighbors to seek an agreement. If no agreement is reached, Council has until 30 days from Jan. 18 to request a hearing before the Board of Adjustment.

A Feb. 16 deadline. There is only one more Formal session (i.e., open to the public) of Council before that deadline. It should be on Feb. 8.

Any citizen outrage will have to be focused on the meeting with developers and then on the Feb. 8 Council meeting.

INFORMATION NEEDED: Where and when is the meeting with the developers?

Read recent coverage of the issues...
Mountain Xpress - 01/26/05
Asheville Citizen-Times - 01/24/05
Mountain Xpress - 01/19/05

MEDIA CONTACTS FOR LETTERS TO EDITOR:
Note: When you send letters to the editor of ACT and MtnXpress, they will need your name, phone number, email, and full home address and please keep your letters under 200 words. Click here for ACT Letters Policy.

Asheville Citizen-Times
Letters to the Editor
c/o Dave Russell DRussell@citizen-times.com
P.O. Box 2090
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: 828-236-8973

Mountain Xpress
Letters to the Editor
c/o Cecil Bothwell cbothwell@mountainx.com
PO Box 144
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: 251-1333

To email both editors at once, click here.

RELEVANT MEETING EXCERPT:
Transcript from the public hearing on Campus Crest, 8/24/2004

Mike Harnett (representing the developers): I'm not sure you'll ever get a
true site-line on the property from Montford because we're going to be keeping the existing 80 foot tree buffer along Montford.

Albert Sneed (attorney for the developers): From the houses across the street
on Montford, will you be able to see this property at all?

Harnett: Well, I've got a shot here (shows photograph of mature forest on
overhead projector). This is an actual photograph, a digital photograph. It's
a view from the western most home adjacent or across the street from our property line. That's the current view, looking across from Montford.

Sneed: Does your plan envision cutting any of those trees?

Hartman: No sir.

Sneed: Do you have any other photographs?

Hartman: I've got the next house to the east (shows photograph). That's the
existing vegetation along Montford. Once again, our plans show keeping the
existing 80 foot width of vegetation from Montford down to our property line.
One more shot, (shows third photograph of mature forest) the next time to the
east. That's the existing vegetation that, once again, we plan on keeping.
________________________________________________________

Towards the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Bellamy sought assurance from
you towards the end of the meeting that the developers would be held to their
commitment to preserve the 80 foot buffer of mature forest along Montford.

Here is the transcript from that part of the meeting:

Councilor Bellamy: In the beginning of the presentation, we heard quite often
about the 80 foot buffer that is going to be retained on Montford. I was
looking through the staff report and 80 feet is not mentioned. Is there any way
we can either ensure that happens or increase the 15 percent (15 feet) that is
stated in here, or how can we make that happen?

Scott Shuford: One way to do that, Ms Bellamy, is to implement the condition
that I previously raised but substitute instead of a Type D buffer a Type A
buffer. We feel that is the most we can get in equivalent landscaping materials
and still accomodate a sidewalk. Ms Ball leaned over to me and pointed out
that this is exactly the kind of project that we want to encourage walking and
we'd be foolish not to work the sidewalk into the project with the understanding

that it will be a meandering sidewalk to preserve the large trees.

Councilwoman Bellamy: So it (the forest buffer on Montford) will be wider
that the one on Zillicoa?

Scott Shuford: Yes, Maam. Let em get that map again. [shows master plan on
overhead]. This is Montford Ave up at the top. The developer was talking about
this area beng the 80 feet buffer [points to large green buffer area shown
along Montford depicted on master plan]. This would be the area that he is
talking about that would remain undisturbed, but you also see this large area here,
possibly some here [pointing to other areas around the perimeter of the
property] and certainly this area here, where the tree canopy could remain
virtually intact and the condution that I read to you earlier would cover that.

EXCERPTS FROM NEWMAN LETTERS TO RESIDENTS
EXCERPT 1:
I have formally asked Council to put this issue on our Council's agenda for our next formal meeting, which would be Tues Jan. 25. The purpose would be to find out what happened to the forest buffer, how it was allowed to happen, and what kind of reasonable restitution should be required for the demolision of the forest buffer that was supposed to be preserved. I have also asked that the public be allowed to speak and share their views about what has happened and what would be reasonable restitution.

Vice Mayor Mumpower has opposed my request to put this on the agenda for our next formal meeting and to allow public comment. Instead, he is advocating for the staff to make a presentation at our next worksession so that the discussion will not be televised and there will be no public input allowed. I would encourage citizens in Montford to contact Council and ask that the issue be put on the formal agenda and allow the citizens of the community to speak about their concerns and ideas for how to resolve this problem.

EXCERPT 2:
Pushing for mediation and restituition made more sense to me, at this time, than pushing for issuance of a fine, for several reasons:

1. I have already stated to Council and the staff that I believe the Campus Crest developers have violated the Conditional Use permit and should be fined. I got no support for this proposal from anyone other than Holly Jones on Council. I could have proposed this again at the Council meeting on Tuesday, and scored some political points, but the proposal would have failed and the issue would be over, as far as Council is concerned, and the people in the neighborhood would have been left high and dry.

2. I thought there was a chance that Council would support a proposal for mediation between the neighborhood and the developers, which they did. While technically not the same thing as a "fine" restitution achieved through mediation is almost certain to include the same thing as a fine--- namely the developers being compelled to make a financial payment as restitution for their misdeeds.

3. I have said all along that the neighborhood should have a voice, not just city bureaucrats or politicians, in determining what would be fair in terms of restitution for the clearcutting. Mediation provides a way to give the neighborhood a voice in the proces that simply issuing a fine would not.

4. If mediation is successful, whatever financial element is included will go directly to the neighborhood that has been adversely impacted, rather than into the city's General Fund. If the City Council directed staff to issue a fine, the funds would just go into the General Fund. Based on what I have heard from folks in the neighborhood, the most likely topic of discussion in terms of restitution will be for the developers to pay for traffic calming measures in the neighborhood.

5. If mediation is not successful in achieving agreement on restitution, we have not closed out any of our options in terms of City Council taking additional steps to hold the developers and staff accountable. We can still appeal the staff's decision not to issue a notice of violation to the board of adjustments or possibly just direct the staff to go ahead and issue a notice of violation. I think the chances of getting Council to do either of these things are much higher if we have gone through mediation and the developers refuse to reach agreement with the neighborhood. I have said all along that if mediation is not successful, I will ask that the issue be brough back to City Council for further action.

EXCERPT 3:
The last thing I would say about where we are at is just how incredibly difficult it has been to get City Council to do anything about this situation up to this point. Other than Holly Jones, it has been like pulling teeth to get the other members of Council to acknowledge that something wrong has happened. I hope that something positive comes out of the mediation process. If mediation does not work, I will be a voice for Council taking additional action on this matter to hold the developers and city staff accountable, including issuance of fines against the developers. We will need support from the community to have any chance of that happening, so let's stay in touch.

EXCERPT 4:
The Campus Crest developers made an unambiguous commitment to City Council
and the community to preserve the 80 foot buffer of mature forest along
Montford Ave. Then they turned around and clearcut almost the entire buffer.
The other problem is that I have heard about 5 different explanations from
the developers and city staff for how this was allowed to happen, none of
which make sense. If City Council does not hold the developers accountable
for their actions, either through the issuance of fines or financial
restitution for what has happened, our development review process will have
no integrity with the community. Giving the developers a pass would send the
signal to all other developers that you can promise the community and City
Council whatever is necesarry to getr your project approved, but once you
have your permit, it's ok to break all the rules.