Buncombe County staff propose tighter floodway rules, expanded emergency-action plans and new definitions

Buncombe County planning staff on Dec. 15 outlined proposed amendments to the county’s flood damage prevention ordinance (ZPH2025-00042) aimed at reducing life‑safety risk in mapped floodways and clarifying several National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) terms.

Angela Lee, Buncombe County floodplain administrator, told the Planning Board the draft changes would add definitions for 'conveyance shadow,' 'repetitive loss' and letter‑of‑map change (LOMA/LOMR); require any fill-based map revision to meet the county’s higher standard of two feet above base flood elevation; and tighten standards that apply within the floodway. Lee said these steps are intended to reduce future construction and temporary storage within the most hazardous portion of regulated floodplain.

"These standards are intended to expand the definition section, reduce construction in the floodway, and reduce temporary structures in the floodway," Lee said. She explained that the county currently regulates to a two‑foot freeboard above the base flood elevation and that the floodway is a more restrictive zone where habitable structures are generally prohibited.

The draft would specifically remove an allowance that has in some cases permitted small additions or accessory buildings in a building’s hydraulic shadow within the floodway without requiring a no‑rise hydraulic certification. Lee said FEMA allows local governments to adopt stricter standards and staff concluded local practice of permitting additions in a floodway "did not appear to be good sound practice."

Staff also proposed clarifying that emergency action plans (EAPs), previously required for temporary nonresidential structures, should explicitly apply to all temporary structures and materials in regulated areas — including materials such as PVC piping or mulch piles — so operators must identify a responsible person and removal plan in advance of an event. Lee said EAPs can be short, functional documents and pointed to AutoCamp as an example of a private site that maintained and exercised an EAP during recent storms.

The presentation included a proposed prohibition on new travel trailers or travel trailer parks encroaching into the floodway and a ban on temporary storage in the floodway of floatable materials (mulch, lumber, containers), junk vehicles and mechanized equipment. Lee said existing permitted uses would generally be grandfathered, but future placement in the floodway would be restricted.

Staff emphasized enforcement challenges and the cost of a 'no‑rise' analysis — an engineering study hydraulic applicants must submit for land disturbance in a floodway — which often leads owners to remove materials rather than pursue permitting. The proposed ordinance seeks to reduce enforcement ambiguity by restricting materials in the floodway while keeping permitting options for the broader special flood hazard area.

Planning staff framed the package as a phased approach. Phase 1, staff said, targets immediate life‑safety priorities in the floodway via the text amendments discussed; Phase 2 would align height or base‑flood‑elevation (BFE) changes and other higher standards with the next FEMA mapping cycle (anticipated in roughly three years) as the county pursues entry into FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS).

Board members asked about legal consequences, nonconforming uses and potential down‑zoning effects. Staff said the flood ordinance is a standalone public‑safety regulation related to NFIP participation rather than a zoning ordinance and that the county attorney would advise on any nonconformity or legal implications before formal adoption. Staff reiterated the current session was discussion‑only and that formal text would return for workshops and public hearings.

The board did not take a vote on the ordinance at this meeting. Staff said they would return with revised language, additional diagrams and a schedule for workshops and public hearings.