- 
Arabic
 - 
ar
Bengali
 - 
bn
German
 - 
de
English
 - 
en
French
 - 
fr
Hindi
 - 
hi
Indonesian
 - 
id
Portuguese
 - 
pt
Russian
 - 
ru
Spanish
 - 
es
Rein in Buncombe County Short-Term Rentals

Rein in Buncombe County Short-Term Rentals

Rein in Buncombe County Short-Term Rentals

This Monday, March 18th, the Buncombe County Planning Board will be discussing the issue of Short-Term Rentals (STRs) for the second time. MountainTrue strongly supports the proposed text amendments to regulate short-term rentals. Mitigating the loss of year-round housing to short-term rentals is a top priority for our residents. 

In particular, we join our community partner, PODER Emma, in strongly supporting the proposal to prohibit short-term rentals in mobile home communities, as their residents are particularly vulnerable to displacement. 

Take Action:

1. Monday, March 18: attend the Buncombe County Planning Board Meeting and let them know you want the regulation of short-term rentals in Buncombe County.

Buncombe County Planning Board Meeting
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024
Time: 5:30 – 7:30 pm
Where: AB Tech Ferguson Auditorium
Tech Dr, Asheville, NC 28801

2. Email the Planning Board and let them know you support the regulation of STRs in Buncombe County.

Background:

It is no secret that Buncombe County, like the rest of the nation, is experiencing an acute housing crisis. More people are struggling to find an affordable place to live due to the cost of living and the dearth of housing options. There are an estimated 5,000 Short-Term-Rentals (STRs) in Buncombe County – that’s 5,000 potential homes that have been removed from the market.

During the county’s comprehensive planning process last year, thousands of community members voiced their concerns about STRs and their impact on affordable housing. It is clear that reducing the loss of year-round housing is a top priority for residents. 

Buncombe County faces a significant housing gap, particularly for low-income individuals and families. The proposed text amendments offer a proactive approach to bolstering affordable housing options. Coupled with potential conversion incentives discussed by the Board of Commissioners, these measures have the potential to make a meaningful impact on our housing crisis.

By ensuring that short-term rentals are appropriately regulated and located, we can create more opportunities for long-term rental and owner-occupied housing in our county. MountainTrue recognizes the connection between the built and natural environment. With less long-term housing, people are pushed away from the schools, jobs, and services that they rely on. This increases miles traveled and destroys more habitats. 

The steps that are being taken are crucial for increasing the housing stock in Buncombe County. We must ensure that short-term rentals are appropriately regulated and located. Please consider taking action: attend Monday’s listening session and email the Planning Board to express your support for the proposals. Thank you for your attention to this issue and making change in our community.

TAKE ACTION to Protect the North Fork of the French Broad River in Transylvania County, NC!

TAKE ACTION to Protect the North Fork of the French Broad River in Transylvania County, NC!

TAKE ACTION to Protect the North Fork of the French Broad River in Transylvania County, NC!

Email Transylvania County Commissioners to encourage their support of the designation of the North Fork of the French Broad River as a Wild & Scenic River!

There is a once-in-a-generation chance to protect the North Fork of the French Broad, which is eligible for designation under the Wild & Scenic River Act. Congressman Chuck Edwards has indicated that he would introduce legislation for the North Fork with the support of the Transylvania County Commissioners. The Commissioners need to hear from Transylvania County residents, business owners, and property owners. Please take the time to send them a message.

Wild & Scenic River designation requires an act of Congress and typically enjoys broad popularity and bipartisan support. A Wild & Scenic designation for the North Fork of the French Broad would ensure that this section of the French Broad River is never dammed, and it would guarantee critical water quality protections and management by the US Forest Service to protect its biodiversity and recreational values. Transylvania County citizens defeated proposed dams in the past, and their hard-won success should be made permanent. 

The North Fork is the headwaters of the French Broad River, a recreation staple in Brevard and Asheville. The French Broad River is responsible for over $3 billion dollars of economic activity annually. Good water quality in these headwaters is essential for local agriculture and recreation economies. Maintaining the health of the North Fork of the French Broad River is also critical to the protection of aquatic wildlife, including hellbender salamanders, musky, and trout. 

The 3.2 mile-long river corridor proposed for protection (pictured below) is owned and managed solely by the US Forest Service. Therefore, no private lands would be affected by designating this stretch of river as Wild & Scenic. The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act has no effect on private lands, including any private lands upstream or downstream of the designated reach. 

Support The REDUCE Act to Cut Down on Plastic Waste and Encourage Recycling

Support The REDUCE Act to Cut Down on Plastic Waste and Encourage Recycling

Support The REDUCE Act to Cut Down on Plastic Waste and Encourage Recycling

Contact Congress to let them know that you support The REDUCE Act, introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Lloyd Doggett. This important bill outlines a strategy to reduce plastic production and plastic waste by limiting the use of new, non-recycled plastic in everyday items. 

Take action: Ask Congress to pass The REDUCE Act and take a crucial step towards eliminating unnecessary plastic usage and incentivizing more eco-friendly practices.

Once passed, the legislation would impose a fee on the production of new plastics designated for single-use items. This fee would not apply to plastics that have been recycled, making the use of recycled materials more financially appealing. This approach is designed to motivate companies to either recycle more plastics or opt for recycled materials over new ones, thus keeping more plastics from ending up in landfills and incinerators.

Anna Alsobrook, MountainTrue’s lead in the Plastic-Free WNC coalition, explains that plastics are a growing threat to both our environment and public health. “Plastic waste has become ubiquitous. MountainTrue has sampled every water basin in Western North Carolina, and we found microplastics in every single sample. And there is a growing body of evidence that plastics and the additives used to make them are harmful to aquatic ecosystems and human health. We need to take action to address this growing problem, and the REDUCE Act can be a part of that solution.” 

The production, distribution, disposal, and incineration of plastics exacerbate climate change, harm public health, and contaminate our communities and natural environment. The REDUCE Act is a means to curb our waste production and encourage the use of recycled plastics by manufacturers.

Take action today.

TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

Let Madison County Commissioners know that our mountain ridges should remain pristine!

Responding to the desires of a single landowner, the Madison County Planning Board put aside the best interests of the wider community and recommended doing away with the rule that would prevent the construction of homes and buildings within 50 feet of ridgelines. This change would completely undercut Madison County’s Mountain Ridge Protection ordinance and open the door to unfettered home construction along the tops of our mountains. 

Allowing development on our ridgetops would threaten our county’s irreplaceable natural beauty, environmental health, economic vitality, and the overall well-being of our community. The move by the Planning Board has sparked widespread public opposition. 

Email Madison County Commissioners now and let them know you want them to protect our mountaintops!

We need you to take action today to let Madison County Commissioners know that we want them to vote to REJECT the Planning Board’s irresponsible recommendation. If you’ve emailed them already about this issue, we urge you to email them again to let them know we’re still watching.   

Bad for Public Safety:
Allowing development on our ridgetops would directly increase the risks of natural disasters like landslides and wildfires, consequences we cannot afford. These disasters, fueled by deforestation and soil disturbance, pose a significant threat to the safety and security of our residents. It is imperative that we stand firm on this ordinance to safeguard our community’s lives and properties.

Bad for Our Economy:
Madison County’s mountains are more than just natural features; they are the backbone of our regional identity, drawing visitors, outdoor enthusiasts, and residents seeking a peaceful, scenic living environment. These mountains bolster our local economy and tax revenue by attracting tourism and promoting local businesses. Compromising on this ordinance would not only tarnish our community’s allure but also strike a blow to the economic heartbeat of our region. We cannot allow our mountain landscapes, a cornerstone of our heritage and economy, to be compromised.

Bad for Our Environment:
Preserving our mountain ridgetops is critical for broader environmental initiatives, including combating deforestation and protecting vital water sources. These areas play a crucial role in water filtration and biodiversity conservation. Upholding this ordinance is key to Madison County’s leadership in environmental stewardship and sustainability.

Email Madison County Commissioners now and let them know you want them to protect our mountaintops! 

Background:
The county has received an application from a private citizen to amend the county’s Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance and do away with a 50’ setback requirement, a key provision that protects mountain ridges from development.

In 1983, following the construction of the Sugar Top Resort in Avery County, the State of North Carolina passed a law protecting the mountain ridgelines of our state. Madison County then took the additional step of putting in place further safeguards to protect one of Madison County’s greatest assets: its natural beauty. One key rule that Madison County added was a 50’ setback on either side of a protected ridge. This simple rule makes protection of our ridgelines and enforcement of these rules relatively easy.  

For 40 years, this ordinance has ensured that Madison County landowners, residents, and visitors would be blessed with visually stunning and natural mountain views and have the confidence that those views would be protected for future generations.

Now, a single landowner wants to do away with the setback requirements in order to develop on a ridgeline. This change in the law would affect ridgelines throughout the county, even though the applicant could simply seek a variance for their individual property. 

Join us in opposing the proposed amendment to the Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance. Learn more by checking out these resources:

  • Click here to read MountainTrue’s letter to the Planning Board. 
  • Click here to read Clear Sky Madison’s letter to the Planning Board.
  • Read more about the proposal in this article from the Asheville Citizen-Times, published November 10. 

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

The Madison County Planning Board is expected to vote on whether to recommend changes to the county’s land-use code that would allow dangerous, industrial biomass facilities in Madison County. The proposed amendments to the county’s land-use ordinance open the door to industrial-sized biomass facilities that would emit more climate-changing carbon into the atmosphere, cause significant air pollution, and pose serious fire risks to nearby residents. 

Take Action: Email the Planning Board and County Commissioners and let them know you want a clean and safe Madison County.

BACKGROUND: 

In response to public feedback, the board has significantly revised the definition of what constitutes a large biomass facility, requires they obtain a special permit,  and restricts their operations to industrial-zoned areas of the county. Here are the latest revisions to the definition of a “large biomass facility”:

A facility that converts biomass sources into value-added products energy for public or private use. Biomass includes but is not limited to wood and wood processing waste, wood pellets, agricultural crops and waste materials, biogenic materials in municipal solid waste, animal manure, and human sewage.”

Large Biomass Facility:

  1. Annual Biomass Throughput: A large biomass facility processes over 5,000 metric tons of biomass per year.
  2. Energy Production: A large biomass facility generates over 10,000 MWh or more energy annually.
  3. Number of Employees: A large biomass facility has over 50 employees
  4. Capital Investment Threshold: A large biomass facility requires an investment of over $5 million. 

This broad definition raises three key concerns:

  1. Inconsistencies in Regulation: The definition of “large biomass facility” appears to include activities already separately defined and regulated within the ordinance, such as sawmills and certain manufacturing facilities. This inconsistency in regulation creates confusion for residents, business owners, and the County in determining which set of rules applies to specific activities.
  2. Potential for Unintended Consequences: An overly broad definition could inadvertently allow certain activities, such as a sawmill evolving into a wood pellet production facility, to escape more stringent permitting requirements. This could occur because nonconforming land uses (i.e., land uses that pre-date an ordinance amendment that makes them newly “nonconforming”) are typically allowed to continue as long as they do not change their primary use or expand significantly. Therefore, a clearer definition is needed to prevent such loopholes.
  3. Unfair Scope: The proposal’s distinction between “large” and “small” biomass facilities does not serve the public or the ordinance’s purposes. It would both allow industrial-scale facilities in residential areas while punishing truly “small” biomass land uses—especially under the currently overbroad definition of “biomass”—by requiring regular folks to go through an expensive and time-consuming set of rezoning and permitting processes. The ordinance should focus on making sure industrial biomass facilities are properly located without sweeping up landowners looking to make occasional, harmless use of collected waste materials. Failing to make this distinction may lead to unnecessary hostility towards environmental advocacy and regulation.

A More Refined Definition

To address these concerns and create a more precise and effective regulatory framework, we propose a more tailored definition of “large biomass facility.” Our suggested definition would:

  • Apply only to facilities that produce biomass products for specific off-site uses, such as electricity generation, heating, or transportation fuel.
  • Tailor the amendment so that if the facility combusts biomass on site, the definition applies only if any electricity generated is transmitted for off-site use.
  • Include wood pellet biomass facilities explicitly within the definition to ensure they are adequately regulated.
  • Maintain the broad definition of “biomass” while narrowing the scope of facilities that fall under this definition.

Additional Considerations

In addition to refining the definition of “large biomass facility” to help distinguish between different types of biomass-related activities, we support:

  • Requiring special use permits for biomass facilities,
  • Correcting what may have been a mistake in section 8.11.12 (“Noise”) that regulates facilities that generate noise pollution “up to 70 decibels.” We believe the county meant “more than 70 decibels. 

Call on the DEQ and Henderson County to restore and protect the health of Clear Creek

Call on the DEQ and Henderson County to restore and protect the health of Clear Creek

Call on the DEQ and Henderson County to restore and protect the health of Clear Creek

The NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently accepting public comments on Draft NPDES Permit No. NC0090247 — which would violate the Clean Water Act by allowing Henderson County to construct a new wastewater treatment plant in Edneyville that could discharge up to 200,000 gallons of wastewater per day into a stream that is already listed as impaired and significantly impacted by pollution. 

Henderson County needs to clean up Clear Creek, not make it more polluted.

For decades, the aquatic habitat of Clear Creek has been impacted by pollution from human and livestock waste, fertilizers, and sediment. Discharge from a new Wastewater Treatment Plant would only worsen the pollution problem. Several studies have shown that effluent from wastewater treatment plants contains toxins that can adversely affect aquatic life. Therefore, additional discharge from a new wastewater treatment plant could further degrade Clear Creek.

The Clean Water Act prohibits North Carolina from issuing an NPDES permit that would authorize a new discharge into a stream that is already impaired without first preparing an analysis showing that the discharge will not further impair water quality. North Carolina also requires that the County pursue “the most environmentally sound alternative [to be] selected from the reasonably cost-effective options” [15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0105(c)(2)]. In the case of Edneyville, the alternative of connecting to Hendersonville’s existing sewer system and wastewater treatment plant is more environmentally sound and reasonably cost-effective — it will also prevent a new discharge into an already impaired stream.

DEQ must uphold the Clean Water Act by denying a permit that would allow the County to further pollute an already impaired waterway. Instead, Henderson County should work with the City of Hendersonville to connect Edneyville to the City’s existing sewer lines and wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, Henderson County should adopt a Comprehensive Plan that discourages sprawl and protects the rural character and water quality of Edneyville and other county communities.