Buncombe County delays zoning changes as state 'downzoning' creates legal uncertainty
May 18, 2026 | Buncombe County, North Carolina
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Buncombe County opened a meeting on planning work but lacked a quorum and therefore rescheduled a public hearing and vote, county staff said. Staff briefed the board on a range of upcoming ordinance work and explained why the county is pausing a comprehensive zoning rewrite while similar "downzoning" bills move through the General Assembly.
The staff member said the legislative proposals could bar counties from creating new nonconformities — for example, by changing a requirement from two required parking spaces to three — and that the statutory language is unclear. "You can't create nonconformities," the staff member said, describing how that rule could prevent some rezonings or changes in standards.
Staff described practical consequences: neighborhood-initiated rezonings generally require property-owner consent, and older subdivisions in "open use" zones often lack setbacks; converting those areas to R1 could generate nonconforming setbacks that are difficult to resolve. The staff member said the county is "wait[ing] to see how it plays out either in the courts or the legislature" before implementing major zoning changes.
Until the state situation clarifies, staff recommended the county pursue ordinance work that is less likely to trigger the downzoning constraints, such as updates to E911 addressing, watershed rules, manufactured-home-park standards and subdivision regulations. Staff also noted coordination with the county's lobbyist at the General Assembly to monitor bills and possible legal challenges.
Because no vote was taken, the public hearing and any formal action will be rescheduled when a quorum is present; staff said they would return with materials and answers to outstanding questions.
The staff member said the legislative proposals could bar counties from creating new nonconformities — for example, by changing a requirement from two required parking spaces to three — and that the statutory language is unclear. "You can't create nonconformities," the staff member said, describing how that rule could prevent some rezonings or changes in standards.
Staff described practical consequences: neighborhood-initiated rezonings generally require property-owner consent, and older subdivisions in "open use" zones often lack setbacks; converting those areas to R1 could generate nonconforming setbacks that are difficult to resolve. The staff member said the county is "wait[ing] to see how it plays out either in the courts or the legislature" before implementing major zoning changes.
Until the state situation clarifies, staff recommended the county pursue ordinance work that is less likely to trigger the downzoning constraints, such as updates to E911 addressing, watershed rules, manufactured-home-park standards and subdivision regulations. Staff also noted coordination with the county's lobbyist at the General Assembly to monitor bills and possible legal challenges.
Because no vote was taken, the public hearing and any formal action will be rescheduled when a quorum is present; staff said they would return with materials and answers to outstanding questions.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
