Asheville – Asheville has been in a housing crisis for three decades. Barry Bialik, a developer of tiny houses, has always sought ways to help. He manufactures tiny homes and advocates for changes to the city’s codes and ordinances to avoid hauling the houses he creates to Greenville. Two years ago, after highlighting the futility of trying to create affordable housing in Asheville when most people couldn’t even afford to buy a tiny vacant lot, he began the process of amending the ordinances in a couple of ways.
One amendment would modify the restrictions on cottage developments, while the other would reduce restrictions on parcels accessed by very long driveways, known as flag lots. For the most part, they adjusted numbers to open more opportunities for building affordable housing. Other changes included allowing front doors that didn’t face the road and permitting a variety of sewage systems.
Last September, when the proposals finally came before the city council, public hearings were held, but the vote was postponed until February 11, 2025. A few dozen families would remain priced out of the local housing market because the council did not want to risk changing the UDO’s arbitrary restrictions before the results of the Missing Middle Study were revealed.
Last Tuesday, the mayor reopened the floor for more public comment. Builders spoke about the need to increase housing stock, while NIMBYs emphasized the importance of preserving legacy neighborhoods, noting that Black neighborhoods were being disproportionately targeted.
Bialik argued, “The whole idea is how do we make building more houses approachable to many people … so it doesn’t take developers to create housing for us all,” he said. “I’m as frustrated as you that we don’t have this overlay in place, or something in place.” This was his fourth time appearing before the council advocating for the amendments. “We’re not creating any new rule.” He stated they were examining what was needed and slightly modifying what was hindering progress. “So, there’s nothing new. There’s no increased density. This only works when the density is already allowed.”
Bialik mentioned that since the proposals were gaining no traction, he and staff had explored ways to carve out exceptions to satisfy everyone. He was willing to compromise but stressed, “It’s really important we do something, especially after Helene. Whereas we had a housing shortage before, we’re now in desperate crisis mode.” He spoke of others like him who “are doing everything we can to build housing here,” and said, “We need a little help.”
When Councilwoman Kim Roney made a motion to deny the proposal, Councilwoman Sage Turner exclaimed, “Whoa, whoa, whoa!” She believed the council had been working on an alternative motion that would accept the changes with carve-outs for five legacy neighborhoods. Roney did not want to withdraw her motion, and those in disagreement were concerned about how convoluted it would be to articulate their desired amendment to a motion denying it.
The denial passed 4-3, with Mayor Esther Manheimer, Councilwoman Maggie Ullman, and Turner opposed. The vote on the flag lot amendment proceeded with little ado and ended in the same manner.
After a brief recess and some new business, Councilman Bo Hess said with much hesitation, “Mayor? Thank you, I would like to reconsider the motion to kill – deny – the zoning text amendments.” He expressed his desire to respect the legacy neighborhoods while also wanting the council to project a sense of urgency about addressing the local housing shortage and not wait another year before a rehearing. “What I would like to do is reopen the motion, reconsider that, and then I will make a motion to continue our vote until the 28th when staff can pull out those neighborhoods that we’ve asked them to pull out.”
City Attorney Brad Branham reviewed the rules for reconsidering a motion, pointing out that it had to be made at the same or next meeting by someone who had voted in favor. Hess did not want a revote that night because he sought guarantees from staff that they would protect the five legacy neighborhoods. By this time, in Manheimer’s words, “staff had fled,” so there would be no revoting on the amendments themselves that night. Hess’ motions were brought to the floor, and the council voted to reconsider both amendments on March 11 with a 4-3 vote, with only Hess changing sides.