February 11, 2022

A message from Perrin de Jong, an 11-year Asheville resident, is a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and a commissioner on the city of Asheville’s Urban Forestry Commission

Dear Neighbors,

The Open Space Amendment will dramatically slash, and in some cases, eliminate, the open space that developers are now required to provide with larger construction projects

In addition, the proposal contains many loopholes that allow developers to avoid even those meager requirements. For example, it would:
• Relieve some developers from providing up to 80% of their required open space due to the use of stormwater mitigation measures that are legally required anyway.
• Relieve developers that provide a percentage of temporary “affordable” housing units from having to provide up to 80% of the open space that would otherwise be mandated.
• And relieve developers from providing an extra 10% of the open space that would otherwise be required in exchange for providing a flat, rectangular spot with pedestrian-accessible seating, resulting in a total potential discount of 90% of the open space required.

Position on dog leash and dog waste laws, rules and regulations enforcement.

As the population of visitors and full-time residents in Western North Carolina grows, conservation areas and public lands experience exceptionally high levels of foot traffic.  Many people visiting protected areas like to bring their canine companions with them to the trail, water ways, and picnic areas.  This increase in foot traffic places great pressure on the overall condition of protected areas and trails, and threatens wildlife, flora and stream-health.  When dogs are unleashed, the impact problems associated with record-numbers of people and dogs are amplified.  

On September 8, The Asheville City Council unanimously voted to approve this Amendment and the fee-in-lieu option for tree removal!

Over the past 10 years, Asheville has lost 6.4 percent of its urban forest canopy– the equivalent of more than 900 acres of trees–mostly as a result of the development necessary to meet the demands of a growing city.

During this period, the City has not had any meaningful ordinance language, programs or policies in place to counter this devastating loss of tree canopy, nor bring a better balance between development and preserving our urban forest.