SAVE CHARLOTTE STREET: DEVELOPERS WITHDRAW ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, A SMALL VICTORY FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS

The neighborhood surrounding Charlotte Street just north of downtown Asheville remains quiet and quaint, the type of neighborhood where you find people taking a leisurely stroll, where bikes ride up and down the streets from dawn to dusk, where grandparents play with little children in front yards.

​

One of the oldest neighborhoods in the city, it exhibits a multitude of craftsman style homes and bungalows, mostly from the post-WWI era, but some as far back as the 1880s.

​

“I never lived in an old house. The house I’m in now is probably approaching 100 years old and it was in tough shape, but the bones were good,” said Bill Murphy, a local resident and representative of the Charlotte Street Neighbors. “I’ve been working on that 4 years now, putting a lot of time and effort into turning the house around.”

​

Recently, there has been a threat to this peaceful slice of historic Asheville - the Charlotte and East Chestnut mixed-use development project. RCG Development Group, along with property owner Hume Killian and his family, planned to demolish most of the current structures within the block encompassed by Charlotte Street, East Chestnut Street, Furman Avenue and Baird Street.

​

However, RCG officially withdrew their proposal on Sept. 17, understanding “the preference for a by-right development,” and plan to go forward within the current zoning laws.

​

RCG’s original development plans required conditional zoning, which, according to Section 7-7-8 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances, would provide flexibility for development outside of standard zoning laws.

​

“With conditional zoning, the idea that I’ll come in and change the zoning with my project, that’s extremely dangerous because in the end you really don’t have any zoning,” said Murphy. “I mean, somebody with enough money and enough property could come in and blow up any neighborhood they want.”

​

RCG’s first phase moving forward will likely include the demolition of four residential buildings along Baird Street, which would be replaced with 18, three-story townhomes within the areas zoning parameters.

​

“It’s an issue of both preservation and zoning, which are critical aspects of this town That’s what draws people here,” Murphy said. “They come up here for a different experience and if we just become another cookie cutter community, we’re going to lose that.”

​

The historic homes in question are designated as contributing structures under the Chestnut Hills Historic District, a part of the National Register of Historic Places. According to the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, contributing structures are those constructed during “the period of significance” of the area, and which “substantially convey their appearance from that period.” In layman’s terms, the homes found within this block of Charlotte Street are most likely from the post-WWI era and earlier, and convey the traditional craftsman and bungalow style.

​

However, their national distinction “places no obligation or restriction on a private owner using private resources to maintain or alter the property.” Unlike local historic districts such as Albemarle Park, Montford, Biltmore Village and St. Dunstan’s, federal districts like Chestnut Hills only receive minimal protection from federal undertakings.

​

But even local districts do not receive permanent protection. According to the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources’ website, local historic district designation is “a type of zoning that applies to entire neighborhoods,” providing “controls on the appearance of existing and proposed buildings.”

​

The city’s general zoning laws are laid out in the Asheville Code of Ordinances, including what types of structures can be built in a neighborhood and how tall they can be. RCG’s original proposal included a five-story mixed-use structure along the portion of property facing Charlotte Street (including commercial and residential space, as well as a parking garage). The height alone would have exceeded the neighborhood’s maximum of 40 feet. When Murphy saw the proposed plan, he didn’t like was he saw.

​

“It basically looked like some sort of medieval fort, hunkering over the street,” he said. “That’s what got people all riled up. We’re not against development at all here, but you got to put the appropriate development in the appropriate places. That’s been our argument all along.”

​

While RCG may have withdrawn their proposal, Murphy said they will be back in the future - in a year and a half, two years - to try to get the zoning changed.

​

“Hopefully with elections coming up with city council we’ll be able to get people in there who’re preservation minded, neighborhood minded,” Murphy said. “We have some very good council members now who came up through the neighborhood issue and they now sit on the council and they’re the ones who’ve been listening to us.”

​

Murphy said he has seen a disturbing lack of communication from developers, a big problem with large-scale development despite the fact local conditional zoning laws require a pre-application conference with city staff and members of the neighborhood. This meeting is meant “to allow the developer to explain the proposed project, be informed about neighborhood concerns, and explore opportunities to address those concerns in cooperation with the neighborhood.”

​

However, Murphy said that RCG and the Killian family refused to talk with the surrounding neighborhoods about the development project, which led to tension.

​

“They’re not from here, I think that’s been a big issue too. They really don’t know the people that have moved into these areas the last 20 years,” Murphy said. “Now, I don’t want to see a five-story apartment building there, but I think the neighborhood would be willing to negotiate if people sit down and work with us.”

​

He also pointed out the hypocrisy of the Killian family’s proposal after their lack of maintenance over the years.

​

“We were actually getting pretty upset about the maintenance issues here when all of a sudden they dropped the bomb of ‘We’re going to take the whole neighborhood out,’” Murphy said. “They say it’s because of the conditions of the homes that they want to take them, but they’re the ones who’ve been maintaining the homes for 40 years. We shouldn’t reward that type of behavior.”

​

As shown in the instance of RCG and local residents, the relationship between development and historic preservation can be tense.

​

“It can be a fraught relationship, or it can be a very fruitful one,” said Ramona Bartos, the NCHPO’s deputy state historic preservation officer. “Historic places stand more of a chance if the developer is aware of them, understands their value, and can be aided in seeing how to incorporate them into a project, rather than seeing them as an obstacle or nuisance.”

​

Bartos outlined a number of local advantages brought on through historic preservation, including some on the economic and ecological levels. Others stand with Bartos in her assessment of the advantages of preservation.

​

“It helps to sustain neighborhoods, commercial areas, and the countryside,” said Stacey Merten, principal planner for the city of Asheville’s Department of Planning and Urban Design. “It also supports community and economic development, including affordable housing, tourism, artistic and cultural enterprises, and community sustainability.”

​

However, development is not an evil force constantly at odds with preservation. Landl said the two must work together in order to create balance.

​

“Right now, part of what makes Asheville such a desirable place to come visit is our historic architecture, but because we’re such a desirable place to come visit and move to - I’m a great example of that - all these people are coming to town and we’re getting a ton of development pressure,” Landl said. “How does the city balance this thing that makes us so special - our historic architecture - with this need and desire for more housing and hotels and the whole deal?”

​

Murphy said the issue mostly surrounds zoning, and the desire of local residents and tourists to keep the historic buildings standing.

​

“Nobody wants to see this go away,” he said. “They can definitely build and stay within the zoning, and they can make all the money that they need on that. I think greed starts to become a bigger and bigger issue.”

​

Murphy pointed out the support he has seen from local small businesses, who, according to Bartos, prefer old buildings compared to new ones.

​

“It’s just like everything else here in Asheville, the rents here are getting so expensive we’re losing the local stores and they’re being replaced by these big chains,” Murphy said. “Because of this COVID and whatnot, people are leaving the cities and going to small towns, but you want to make sure they don’t bring the problems of the big city when they come to the small towns. We’re seeing it in home prices - there’s not much affordable housing left.”

​

Both Murphy and Landl talked about RCG’s proposed affordable housing units, both stating that the proposed units would not be affordable.

​

“It’s what I was paying basically when I lived in Washington DC 10 years ago for an apartment,” Murphy said. “How is a new teacher going to afford something like that? They can’t.”

​

Landl said the current homes are more affordable than what RCG proposed, and there are more units available as they currently exist. She also pointed out the tax discounts RCG would receive in the process, which would ultimately cost the city 1.5 million dollars.

​

“In fact, we’re going to see a situation where they displace the people that live there currently and there’s no place for them to move into for years until the development is finished,” Landl said.

​

Thankfully, the demolition of most of these historic homes has come to a halt thanks to the efforts of Landl and her coworkers at the PSABC, and neighborhood leaders such as Murphy and other members of the Charlotte Street Neighbors. Should RCG and the Killian family return later to complete their project, the people of Asheville must stand up and let their voices be heard in order to help create balance between development and the city’s historic integrity.

​

“Asheville has one of the most active local nonprofit preservation advocacy groups as well as a joint county-city historic preservation commission,” Bartos said. “Having conversations and planning in place well before there is a preservation threat is key to any community’s efforts to balance the past with the present.”