Board Refuses to Reopen South Grove Setback Case, OKs Moore Avenue Home
Board of Adjustment • AshevilleJuly 27, 2026
Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.
Asheville's Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 on July 27, 2026, to deny a rehearing for an already-built house at 133 South Grove Street that sits over the side-setback line. The owner and builder had skipped the original May hearing, and members made clear that absence would cost them. Earlier in the evening, the same five members unanimously let a retired service member build a single-story home inside a stream buffer on Moore Avenue.
- Rehearing denied 5-0 for 133 South Grove Street; May 18 setback-variance denial stands
- Builder concedes his "new" evidence existed before the first hearing
- Neighbor's attorney challenges whether state law allows rehearings at all
- 56 Moore Avenue variance approved 5-0, allowing a 77% buffer reduction along one stream bank
No Second Hearing for South Grove House
1 big thing: A completed house at 133 South Grove Street remains in violation of city zoning after the board refused to reopen the case.
The basics: On May 18, 2026, the board denied Case 26-03224-PZ. Owner Darian Bodenhorst had sought a 6-inch (8.33%) variance into the 6-foot side setback in the RS-8 zone after a March 30, 2026, notice of violation. No one appeared for the applicant. Under board rules, a rehearing is allowed only for "newly discovered evidence that could not have been, with reasonable diligence, discovered and/or produced at the prior hearing," said Carly Gillingham, legal advisor to the board.
Where things stand: Bodenhorst offered four grounds: an as-built survey showing the house 5.3 feet from the line, which is 2.4 inches closer than staff estimated; the city's approval record; the neighbor's refusal to sell land; and the builder's willingness to testify.
Builder Joshua Holcomb of Holcomb Mountain Homes opened with a mea culpa. "I want to apologize first of all for not being present at the initial hearing. We were not aware that we were allowed to be here and present," he said. He said the owner lives out of the country and did not get a notice. He blamed a displaced survey flag for the encroachment.
A board member then walked Holcomb through the timeline. Holcomb agreed the markers and fence were in place before May 18. Asked, "So if someone had shown up, they could have told us that at the hearing, right?" Holcomb replied, "100%, yes." He also said he had no copies of emails from pre-hearing negotiations.
Board Chair Suzanne Godsey rejected Holcomb's suggestion that city staff had dropped the ball. "I work with the City of Asheville every day, and if I don't get a callback from somebody, I call them again. So that's on you," she said.
The other side: The board granted standing to neighbor Ms. Edwards by voice vote. Her attorney, Jesse Swords of Allen, Stahl, and Kilbourne, argued that none of the four points qualified. "It's a new drawing, but it's the old facts," he said. He added that a surveyor's mistake is a claim against the surveyor, not grounds for a city variance. On the neighbor dispute, he said, "Negotiations are ongoing. Circumstances haven't changed. It just hasn't been resolved." Swords said both sides have made offers.
Holcomb described months of stalled talks. He also said the new driveway sits on the neighbor's side under an informal deal. "We put the new driveway exactly where the old driveway was to honor our agreement. I wish we should have put it in writing," he said.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: One member acknowledged there was new evidence but said it could have been produced with reasonable diligence. Another member found nothing new in the record. "There were mistakes made on a lot of people's part, I think, in this. And I guess in the end, those are going to cost somebody some money, but that's not our decision," said a third board member.
The motion to deny passed (For: 5, Johnson, Wornall, Plemmons, Kledis, Godsey; Against: 0; Absent: 0). The owner is left with an encroaching house and an unresolved dispute with his neighbor.
What's next: Holcomb said he expects the matter to end up in court. A private land purchase remains possible, according to Swords.
Who Gets a Second Chance?
Why it matters: The South Grove case surfaced a legal challenge to the board's own rehearing process. If that challenge sticks, it could reshape how every future denial is contested.
Where things stand: Swords formally objected. "We think it's not authorized by the state statute, Chapter 160D," he said. He argued a board decision is final unless it is appealed to Superior Court within 30 days.
Gillingham responded that Chapter 160D lets the board adopt its own consistent rules of procedure. She acknowledged no provision expressly addresses rehearings. She said the process is narrowly reserved for genuinely new evidence and protects applicants' due process. "Because if a decision gets appealed to Superior Court, the record of the decision is the record," she said.
What's next: Swords said he respectfully disagreed and then argued the merits. The board never ruled on the objection. It decided the case on the evidentiary standard alone, which leaves the question open for a future case.
Retiree Wins Stream-Buffer Variance on Moore Avenue
Why it matters: Asheville's 2010 aquatic buffer rule collided with a lot that predates it. The board chose to allow a home and to push stormwater scrutiny to the permitting stage.
The basics: 56 Moore Avenue is a 0.17-acre RS-8 lot north of Amboy Road. A jurisdictional stream bisects the lot and flows into Moore Branch, a tributary of the French Broad. The 30-foot buffer covers about 2,654 square feet, which leaves roughly 1,619 square feet buildable. A 2011 plat note calling the stream nonjurisdictional had expired. In 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers found the upstream parcel at 58 Moore Avenue jurisdictional.
Where things stand: Applicant Ryan Reynolds sought variances from setback, land-disturbance and buffer standards. His plan is an 864-square-foot, one-story home with a basement, two parking spaces and a rear deck. According to Madelyn Stone, Planner I, the permanent encroachment would total 720 square feet, "which is an average buffer depth reduction of 77% from the eastern bank." Temporary grading would disturb another 880 square feet.
Reynolds said he just retired from the service and is building a retirement home for himself and his wife. He said the lot's narrow road requires off-street parking. "No matter what you build here, whether it's a tiny house or otherwise, you're going to have to ask for a variance to get something on that lot," he said. He conceded that a two- or three-story design could shrink the impact but said it was not an option for his household.
The other side: A board member pressed on whether the city had reviewed the stormwater plan. Reynolds said he had received no formal comments. Stone said the plan's azalea plantings, rain catchment and erosion control are "more than most people do on site for single-family homes." Godsey flagged a gap in the catchment system: "It can hold 720 gallons, but once that's full, then what happens?" Gillingham and Godsey both said a stormwater condition would be redundant because the regulations apply regardless. No public testimony was offered.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The variance needed a 4/5 vote and passed (For: 5, Johnson, Wornall, Kledis, Plemmons, Godsey; Against: 0; Absent: 0). Members praised Reynolds for applying before construction. One member remarked that "the actor Ryan Reynolds probably couldn't put something together as thorough as one of our retired veterans." The downstream stream corridor now depends on permit-stage enforcement.
What's next: Stormwater review with the city's stormwater staff comes at permitting. If the plan fails that review, the owner must return to the board for another variance.
- Minutes adopted: June 22, 2026, minutes and findings of fact approved by voice vote.
Looking ahead: The South Grove house remains in violation. Watch for a settlement between the neighbors or a court filing, and for whether the Chapter 160D challenge to rehearings resurfaces.