From Daily Planet Staff Reports

Following formal city opposition, a developer intending to build a controversial downtown condominium complex on former public parkland in downtown Asheville has changed his plans so that he can proceed without the approval of the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners.

Developer Stuart Coleman would have needed county approval to put construction equipment on county-owned parkland next to his site, but he changed his plans following action by Asheville City Council on June 10 asking the county to buy back the land. (The condos are to be constructed on the south side of Pack Square Park near City Hall.)

Coleman said he instead plans to use a street behind the property for the construction equipment, meaning he will no longer need final approval from the county commissioners.

As a result, the nine-story building is expected to receive final approval from the city’s Technical Review Committee on July 7.

The commissioners were scheduled to vote next Tuesday on an affidavit to allow the construction staging, and at least two board members — Chairman Nathan Ramsey and David Gantt — said they still would like to hold a public meeting on that date to discuss the possibility of buying back the land or organizing a land swap with the help of the city.

Asheville’s council, at last week’s heavily attended meeting, voted unanimously to condemn the county’s sale of the parkland and request that Buncombe reacquire it.

After Carl Mumpower, council’s lone Republican, made the successful motion, Councilwoman Robin Cape, a progressive Democrat, quipped that this might have been the first time that she and the conservative Mumpower had been in complete agreement on an issue.

Smiling, Mayor Terry Bellamy noted that Mumpower’s and Cape’s concurrence proves “miracles can happen.”

Coleman purchased the Hayes & Hopson building in 2006 and later bought a piece of parkland from the county.

In the aftermath, opponents have lambasted the commissioners for selling the land in what they allege was a back-room deal. The city’s resolution last week criticized the sale on the grounds that it violated long-standing agreements and should have been subjected to the city for consideration first.