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

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.