[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6462422,"mediaKeyId","5809591-8d3d9b162e47b0e8888f7494c6b6f963","parentId",5809591,"title","Steering committee narrows Swannanoa policy map: large resilience area, smaller corridor highlight","audioSeconds",3885,"startMs",413000,"endMs",4298000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5809591-8d3d9b162e47b0e8888f7494c6b6f963&start=413&end=4298","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5809591-8d3d9b162e47b0e8888f7494c6b6f963/thumbnail_413000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6462422/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Steering-committee-narrows-Swannanoa-policy-map-large-resilience-area-smaller-corridor-highlight","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6462422-dffe89861790c55898bb4865f9d8a12d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775875797&Signature=IZydwtKx7cRytECiBuK7LE4Zuurkf5zvbR10PWwH0N7VUhjsOcfqCL~mFpzORF3O69L~mqZ4QjAEAP9WUF4ZJtUcC0Mp4pUY6AxhTK8zdbpV7Cgxu3npt2-KIDdqaio2gVQXRjNhUyxGuspsZSPyG71-lONqSVb92oEPm3n7-vtldWZzzVxL-EEda-0-yymVOOkyq-Cwfjw4bAKSVkrbo5R6JGOeL3ELSVJLga73Ewy6NZwSXH-K1Bwx5Ca1aCjyRniDbNCF8YOzAB-v60d~0kyLDq9tf3GHCPG8YMW2zHTQIOGAIlCcdNHoVZDaW4Zc45PPmAhUVEeS~PkaYOvQMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Buncombe County, NC","date","2025-09-22T23:15:08.88Z","article","Buncombe County's Swannanoa small-area plan steering committee agreed to advance a two-tier policy map that pairs a broad resilience area with a smaller corridor-style highlight for land‑use and economic-development work.

Steering committee members and county planning staff said the resilience area — intended to guide flood, fire and landslide risk policies — will span a substantially larger footprint than the compact highlight area staff will use for targeted land‑use recommendations along the U.S. 70 corridor and nearby neighborhoods. Planning staff said they will refine the map using topography and the county’s steep‑slope overlay before releasing it for public comment.

The committee adopted the two-tier approach as a working direction rather than as a final, legally binding decision. Planning staff emphasized that the comprehensive plan’s growth, equity and conservation map (adopted by Buncombe County in 2023) remains a starting point, and that the small‑area planning process can amend that countywide map to reflect local priorities.

“Tonight, we are going to talk about finalizing the policy map,” planning staff said as they introduced the exercise, noting the presentation showed comprehensive‑plan growth areas superimposed on the Swannanoa township map.

Why it matters: Steering members repeatedly cited downstream impacts — especially flooding and stormwater runoff — as a reason to include more upland area in resilience planning. Members also pressed for protection of steep slopes and for policies that account for existing vulnerabilities in neighborhoods such as Lytle Cove, where residents said historic development predating current stormwater standards contributes to dangerous runoff.

Key outcomes and staff directions
- Staff will keep a large “resilience” area for countywide hazard and risk policies (flood, wildfire, landslide, heat) and a smaller “highlight” area for focused land‑use recommendations, design workshops and corridor-level economic development work. This smaller area centers on the US‑70 corridor and adjacent neighborhoods.
- The committee asked staff to redraw certain boundaries using topography and stream corridors rather than parcel lines alone; staff said they will return with a revised map for public review and the next steering meeting.
- The group reached consensus that two parcels referred to in discussion (commonly called “The Cove” and a portion of Riceville) should be left in the resilience area but not be treated as part of the smaller, growth/highlight study area. Planning staff described this as a way to address hazard and watershed issues without presuming local land‑use preferences for those parcels.
- Members requested staff exclude or carve out steep‑slope areas from the highlight where the county’s overlay already restricts development. Planning staff said the map version shown had already removed many steep‑slope parcels to focus on developable land.

Discussion points and local concerns
- Lytle Cove: a resident who identified herself as living in Lytle Cove warned that existing, older development there lacks modern stormwater controls and “when it rains hard… all the lower part of Lytle Cove suffers,” and urged the group not to treat vulnerable downhill parcels as candidates for higher‑density growth.
- Steep‑slope overlay: staff described the overlay as the county’s most restrictive development area, limiting disturbance and imposing geotechnical and landscaping requirements; the committee discussed how pre‑existing development often remains grandfathered and therefore may not meet newer stormwater standards.
- Corridor areas: committee members requested the county include parts of the Moffett/Rivermont corridor and other multifamily concentrations near Exit 55 in the highlight area because of their housing density and importance to recovery and redevelopment.

Process and next steps
- Staff said the map will be refined using topography, stream channels and the steep‑slope overlay and will be released for targeted outreach (postcards, targeted social media and in‑person popups) before being presented to the planning board and Board of Commissioners for public hearings.
- The steering committee will continue to meet and will use hazard‑analysis maps (scheduled to be available to the committee in October–November) to further tailor resilience policies to parcel‑ and neighborhood‑level risks.

No formal legislative actions or votes were recorded in the meeting transcript; the committee’s direction was recorded as staff guidance to produce a revised map for public review.

The committee named outreach and hazard‑analysis milestones as immediate next steps as staff prepares the map package for broader public engagement and formal review by county boards.

Ending: Steering members and staff repeatedly framed the map work as iterative. Planning staff urged committee members to continue targeted outreach in underrepresented neighborhoods and said the next meeting will include updated hazard maps and a public‑comment window on the draft policy map.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Swannanoa Small Area Plan Steering Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Buncombe County's Swannanoa small-area plan steering committee agreed to advance a two-tier policy map that pairs a broad resilience area with a smaller corridor-style highlight for land‑use and economic-development work.","taxTitle","Buncombe County, North Carolina","taxId",3914,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6462417,"SWOT poll: 397 respondents; 72% favor resilience changes — steering committee to draft three vision options for public vote",721,5007000,5728000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5809591-8d3d9b162e47b0e8888f7494c6b6f963&start=5007&end=5728","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5809591-8d3d9b162e47b0e8888f7494c6b6f963/thumbnail_5007000.jpg","/articles/6462417/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/SWOT-poll-397-respondents-72-favor-resilience-changes-steering-committee-to-draft-three-vision-options-for-public-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6462417-5bf60a1d7d7ee0fcec98bb1128a89b1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775875797&Signature=md1Q7iU~Glkov5wZps50fqdPpPLaiO82-WChSyz6BtaHtCZnGBBZ2GZXeZBn-ymNw5YLewEFCSjpzyZnBCv-UR4LBxjQMboN9N3Kn-T-aRpnobLLs53~fv8l5FphKZrjViA82B6wOvqjjzym47qQ30xaz-r2FzxDop5X4C66d7qz8Ca3JYzPC41OUp~KtmgeG3-RRlZEJCj-es35JsrNSnK0pQh-5Mhka5DIz6HLiKBVFnYhgYURD7ksQqLl1ikrMNnKOf8nnNvc-6F6aKstiOJoNk~5a-V4ncuB3ZbstouCDZFvVOuqnkpSlLHfpHk7KeO6tb~K-Hj9xRNInm4EJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Buncombe County planning staff told the Swannanoa steering committee that 397 members of the public completed the project’s recent poll and that 72% of respondents said the county should make changes to prepare for future disasters.

Staff summarized the poll’s top priorities as: creating early‑warning systems, evacuation plans and disaster resources; building more parks and recreation; making roads, bridges and utilities safer; protecting wetlands, rivers and streams; and strengthening stormwater rules to reduce flooding. The planning team asked steering members to draft three short vision‑statement options that will be presented for a public vote in the next engagement phase.

“72% said they want the county to make later changes to prepare for future disasters,” a planning staff presenter said while reviewing public poll results. Staff also noted the public outreach methods used to gather responses: pop‑ups and tabling at community events, targeted Facebook ads, CodeRED/Echo notifications, pop‑up events such as “pizza with the planner,” and postcards to neighborhoods (for Riceville the planning team mentioned sending a postcard).

Why it matters: Those poll and SWOT results will shape the vision statement that guides Swannanoa’s small‑area plan, which in turn will influence recommendations about land use, hazard mitigation, housing and public infrastructure.

Committee discussion and process concerns
- Steering committee members raised concerns that 397 survey responses may not represent all demographic groups in the study area. One member said she was “concerned about writing a vision statement when we don't have input that's representative of our community,” and urged staff to keep targeting underrepresented groups as the process continues.
- Staff replied that outreach is iterative: the team will use each engagement phase to target demographic gaps and will bring vision options back to the public for validation.
- The committee agreed on process steps: members will each draft a proposed vision statement, work in small groups at the next meeting to consolidate options, and then select up to three options staff will take to the public for voting.

Poll and SWOT details
- Poll period: staff said the public survey ran roughly a month (late July through late August) and produced 397 responses used in this round of SWOT synthesis.
- Top resilience priorities from public responses included early‑warning systems and disaster planning; parks and recreation; safer roads, bridges and utilities; riparian and wetland protection; and stronger stormwater regulation.
- The SWOT synthesis also surfaced concerns about transportation, pedestrian connectivity, vacant/damaged buildings, limited food access and uneven provision of public services in some neighborhoods.

Logistics and next steps
- Homework: steering committee members were asked to draft vision‑statement options before the next meeting and bring them to small‑group work sessions. Staff said they will assemble those drafts and the steering committee will select three alternatives for a public vote.
- Scheduling: the committee discussed a schedule change; a member asked to move the October 13 meeting to October 20 to avoid conflicts and the group agreed to the date change.
- Staff indicated additional organization‑level SWOT responses remain under compilation and are not included in the 397‑response public total; those organizational inputs will be folded into later engagement summaries.

Ending: Staff framed the vision‑statement exercise as iterative: the steering committee will draft options informed by the public SWOT and then test the preferred language with the broader community before finalizing direction for the small‑area plan.","Buncombe County planning staff presented SWOT and public‑engagement results (397 responses) showing top resilience priorities and asked the Swannanoa steering committee to draft three vision‑statement alternatives for public testing. Committee members raised representativeness concerns and set homework to bring draft vision statements to the next","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Steering committee narrows Swannanoa policy map: large resilience area, smaller corridor highlight

SWOT poll: 397 respondents; 72% favor resilience changes — steering committee to draft three vision options for public vote