The URL can be used to link to this page

06-12-2025 Agenda Packet PBPERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERSON COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 215 MEETING AGENDA June 12, 2024 7:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B.CONSIDERATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA C.CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Pursuant to NCGS §138A-15(e), the Chair shall remind Planning Board members of their duty to avoid conflicts of interest and to inquire as to whether there is any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters coming before the Board at that time. Does any member have any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters coming before the Planning Board today? If so, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the particular matter involved. D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) 1.Petition RZ-01-25 – A request by the Applicant, Eliud Munoz for Rezoning approval on .8 acres located at 2477 Leasburg Rd., Tax Map 116 28 from R (Residential) to B1 (Highway Commercial Business). E.DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Staff requested ordinance amendments for discussion F.APPROVAL OF 1.Planning Board minutes – August 22, 2024 2.Planning Board minutes – January 9, 2025 3.Planning Board minutes – May 8, 2025 G. ANNOUNCEMENTS or OTHER BUSINESS 1.For the July meeting, we have a text amendment and possibly 1 or 2 subdivisions 2. Reminder – the July 10 meeting may have new members and we will be electing officers H. ADJOURNMENT RZ-01-25pg 2 of 13 Letter of Intent Greetings, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing today to express my interest in re-zoning the current residential property at 2477 Leasburg Road, Roxboro, to a commercial property where my intention is to purchase used cars and repair them for resale. I believe this location is an ideal space for meeting the needs of the local community. And I am committed to contributing to the prosperity and vibrancy of Roxboro's economy. With other repair shops in the area, this location is perfect for contributing to the community. It will also help marketing dynamics in the area. This space will accommodate my small team, and provide for a productive work environment. I look forward to the possibility of working together. I would be grateful to have an opportunity to discuss details or any questions you may have. Please feel free to call me or email me. (I am listing my phone number and email address at the bottom of this letter.) Thank you for considering my application. Yours sincerely, Alex (Munoz) Tel: 919-604-6076 Email: munozalex00@gmail.com PS: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CTBMLv94Kpapyopu7 RZ-01-25 pg 3 of 13 PERSON COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Rezoning/Map Amendment RZ-01-25 – A request by the Applicant, Eliud Munoz for Rezoning approval on .8 acres located at 2477 Leasburg Rd., Tax Map 116 28 from R (Residential) to B1 (Highway Commercial Business). Request Rezoning/Map Amendment RZ-01-25 – A request by the Applicant, Eliud Munoz for Rezoning approval on .8 acres located at 2477 Leasburg Rd., Tax Map 116 28 from R (Residential) to B1 (Highway Commercial Business). The application, scale drawing, and letter of intent from the applicant precede this report in the agenda packet. The property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Leasburg Road with Dee Long Road and contains a building that has previously been occupied by businesses. (Exhibit A: Aerial Photo). Existing Land Use & Land Use Compatibility The site contains a small-scale commercial structure that has previously been occupied by a number of businesses. The current owner acquired the property in 2022. Google Maps still lists B&M Grocery as being located here. The adjacent uses are as follows: • North: Residential • South: Residential • East: Residential • West: Residential Surrounding zoning: North: Residential South: Residential East: B-1 (Highway Commercial) West: Residential Residential District: The purpose of this district is to provide for single family residential uses and compatible development. B-1 Highway Commercial Business District: The purpose of this district shall be to provide for commercial and light industrial development which operate in a relative quiet, clean and non-noxious manner. (Exhibit B: Zoning Map) Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Consistency Person County Planning Ordinance Section 152, Zoning Permits, as well as, North Carolina General Statues (NCGS) § 160D-604 & § 160D-605 requires plan consistency and a recommendation from the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Zoning amendment review shall also follow specific criteria, as listed in NCGS Article 7, § 160-701, as follows: Purposes. Zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. To that end, the regulations may RZ-01-25 - Staff Report 5/27/2025 Page 2 of 3 address, among other things, the following public purposes: to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to facilitate the efficient and adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; and to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. The regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the local government's planning and development regulation jurisdiction. This site is designated Rural in the Future Land Use Plan, as are the surrounding properties (Exhibit C: Future Land Use Map): The Rural future land use category is intended to promote the protection of agricultural lands and natural resources while allowing low density residential development (minimum lot size of one acre). Cluster or conservation subdivisions, which permit higher density residential development while setting aside land for preservation should also be permitted in Rural areas. The Rural future land use category should permit neighborhood-scale commercial development at, and within 1,000 feet of, major intersections (examples include Timberlake, Olive Hill, Hurdle Mills, etc.). Development regulations should limit floor area of retail and similar uses in these rural commercial nodes. Agricultural and agricultural-support uses, along with other typical rural commercial enterprises should be permitted throughout these areas, without limitation. Primary Uses: Single Family and Agricultural Secondary Uses: Silos, Convenience Stores, Agricultural Business, Supporting Services Exhibit D contains the Permitted Use Table from the Planning Ordinance to help compare the uses currently allowed on site with those that would be allowed if the rezoning is approved. This is a legislative decision, so all the uses listed in the Permitted Use Table must be considered as potential uses for the site. No conditions or limitations for particular uses or categories of use can be added with a legislative rezoning application. The Board may want to balancing some additional considerations as the list of uses is reviewed: a) The building has been used as a business for years. b) The site is considered non-conforming if it remains in the Residential district and would need a special use permit to convert to a commercial use. c) The lot size naturally limits the uses suited to the site. d) The lack of water and sewer service naturally limit the uses suited to the site. The Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) includes the following Guiding Principles, with relation to this rezoning request (listed in italics): Guiding Principle 3: Building A Strong & Vibrant Community • Guiding Principle No. 2.1 – 3.2. Encourage the reuse and revitalization of legacy commercial areas to reduce urban sprawl. o While this principle refers to reuse in the 15-501 corridor, this building represents a much smaller scale example. Allowing reasonable economic use of a commercial building that already exists along a well-traveled corridor seems more consistent than forcing the RZ-01-25 - Staff Report 5/27/2025 Page 3 of 3 reconstruction of the site consistent with the current residential zoning. Additionally, approving this rezoning request brings a non-conforming site into compliance. Upon review of Application RZ-01-25, the Planning Board is to advise and comment on whether the proposed action is consistent or inconsistent with the County’s adopted Comp Plan. This “Statement of Reasonableness and Plan Consistency” may be approved in a single-statement for a motion. Specifically, the Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of Commissioners from this single-statement addressing the Comp Plan consistency or inconsistency and any other matter, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board. Any statement of inconsistency shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment application by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall also adopt a statement describing whether their action is consistent or inconsistent with the Comp Plan and why that action is reasonable and in the public’s interest. State law allows for the possibility that a rezoning request may meet the intent of a community’s comprehensive plan while not necessarily meeting the adopted text or map. This is part of the purpose behind the consistency statement. It gives the advisory and elected boards the opportunity to document the consistency with the intent and legally approve a request. It is often advisable to follow-up such an action with a plan amendment. Planning Staff Analysis & Recommendation The building appears to have been constructed as a business or converted to a business in the distant past. The lot is on the southwest corner of US Highway 158 (referred to locally as Leasburg Rd.) and Dee Long Road. The lot across Dee Long Road is also zoned B1, though it appears more residential in nature. The presence of this adjoining lot also being zoned B1 limits any concerns about spot zoning in staff’s mind. Leasburg is one of three primary approaches to Roxboro from the west. The parcel is about 1 mile west of the nearest Roxboro city limits. If the Planning Board finds they want to recommend approval of the Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-01-25, the Planning Board can provide a written Statement of Reasonableness and Plan Consistency to the Board of Commissioners in a single-statement potential motion, as follows: “I hereby move to approve Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-01-25, for the Munoz rezoning request on Leasburg Road to rezone the 0.8 acre Subject Property from the R (Residential) to B1 (Highway Commercial) district, and find it is consistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan” because (please provide a description). Attachments: Exhibit A – Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C – Future Land Use Map Exhibit D – Permitted Use Table Prepared by: Margaret A. Hauth, Interim Planning Director 116 APPENDIX C TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (Amended: 5/18/92; 11/17/92; 4/4/94; 7/11/94; 2/19/96; 6/3/96; 7/8/96; 5/5/97; 12/6/99; 5/4/2001; 12/1/2003; 6/6/2005; 11/1/2004; 11/19/2007; 11/3/2008; 12/1/2008; 4/20/2015; 9/6/2016; 10/2/17; 10/5/20, 11/16/20; 5/3/21) Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right are indicated by "X". Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right with certain conditions are indicated by "X" with a reference to a footnote to this Table. District in which particular uses are permitted as a special use upon approval of the Board of Commissioners are indicated by "S". See Section 153 for details in obtaining a Special Use Permit. PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Accessory Building X X X X X Accessory Uses Incidental To Any Permitted Use (*See Note 1) X X X X Adoption Services X X Advertising Agencies X X X AGRICULTURAL OR FARM USE EXEMPT FROM PLANNING ORDINANCE Aircraft Equipment, Parts and Supplies (*See Note 5)X X* X Airline Ticket Agency (*See Note 5)X X X* X Airport Operations (*Note 5 and Sections 90 & 91) S S S X* S Airstrips, (Private) /Heliport Without Commercial Activity (*See Note 8) (Added 5/7/01) X* X* X* X* X* Alcoholic Beverages Packaged, Retail Sale X X X Ambulance Service or Rescue Service S X X S X Amusement Parks S X Animal Medical Care (Including Kennel Operations) X X X Antique Shops S X X X Apparel And Accessory Sales X X X Appliance (Major) Sales and Repair X X X Appliance (Small) Sales and Repair X X X Art and Craft Supplies X X X Art Gallery X X X Auction Sales (Excluding livestock auctioning) S X X Automobile Off-Street Parking, (Commercial)X X X X Automobile Parts and Accessory Sales X X X Automobile Rentals and Leasing (*See Note 5) X X X* X Exhibit D 117 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Automobile Repair and/or Body Work (Excluding commercial wrecking, dismanteling, or storage of junk vehicles) Amended 12/01/2008 X S Automobile Sales, New and Used S X X Automobile Service Station Operations X X X Bank, Savings and Loan Company and Other Financial Activities X X S X Barber or Beauty College Instruction X X X Barbering and Hair Dressing Services X X X Bed and Breakfast Inns, Boarding and Rooming Houses, and Tourist Homes S X X Bicycle Sales and Repair X X X Blacksmith X X Boats and Accessories, Retail Sales and Service S X X Books and Printed Matter, Distribution X X Book Stores X X X Bowling Alley X X X Brewery (Added 10/2/17)S S Bridal Shops X X Builders Supply X X Bus Repair and Storage Terminal Activities (Amended 12/1/2008) X S Bus Station Activities (*See Note 5) S X X* X Camper/Recreational Park (Amended 8/2/2010) (See Section 155-2)S S S S Carpet and Rug Cleaning X X X Carwash X X X Catalog Sales X X X Catering X X X Cellular Telephone Sales and Services X X X Cemeteries - Church or Family X X X S X Cemeteries – Commercial S S S X Chemical Retail Sales X X Church, Temples, Synagogues X X X X X Clinic Services, Medical and Dental S X X S X Club or Lodge S S S X Commercial Modular Building (Adopted 5/5/97) X X X 118 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Construction, Trades (*Building, heating, electrical, plumbing, fire sprinkler and others) (Excluding outside storage of equipment or supplies) (Amended 11/19/2007) S X X X Construction, Trades (With outside storage of equipment or supplies) X X Contractor, General (Excluding outside storage of equipment or supplies) X X X Contractor, General (With Outside Storage of Equipment or Supplies) X X Convenience Stores S X X X County Governmental Facility (Adopted 2/3/97) S X X X Curio and Souvenir Sales X X X Day Care Center S X X X X Distillery (Added 10/2/17) S S Dry Cleaning and Laundry X X X Dwelling, Single-Family X X X X Dwelling, Two-Family and Garage Apartments X X X X Dwelling, Multiple-Family (See Section 80)S S S X Eating and Drinking Facilities (Amended 12/1/2008) X X S Electrical / Electronic Equipment and Supply Sales X X X Employment Agencies X X X Equipment Rental (Amended 11/16/20) X X X X Event Center (Amended 09/09/2019) S X X X X Exterminating Service X X X Family Care Home X X X X Farm Machinery Sales and Servicing S X X Farm Supplies Merchandising (Excluding Farm Machinery) X X X Fire Station And Law Enforcement Operations S X X X X Floor Covering Sales X X X Flower Shop X X X Funeral Home S X X X Furniture Retail Sales X X X Game and Sports Facilities (Amended 5-18-92) S S Glass Sales and Installation X X X Golf Courses S X X X Grocery Retail X X X Grocery, Wholesale X X Group Home for Developmentally Disabled Adults X X X X 119 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Gunsmith X X X Hardware, Paint and Garden Supply Sales X X X Health Spas, Fitness Center (Amended 2/7/2011) X X X Historical Preservation Commercial Use S X X X Home for the Aged S S X X Home Furnishings And Appliance Sales X X X Hospital or Sanitarium Care (Except for the Insane, Feeble-Minded and Addicted) (Amended 12/1/2008) S X S Industrial, Light (See Appendix C Note 2) (Amended 11/16/20) S X X X Industrial, Heavy (See Appendix C, Note 2) (Amended 11/16/20) S X Insurance Agencies X X X Interior Decorator X X X Janitorial Service X X X Jewelers X X X Karate and Other Martial Arts Instruction X X X Kennel Operations, Care S X X Landscape Contractor X X X Library S X X X Livestock Sales and Auctions (Amended 12/1/2008) S S Locksmith X X X Manufactured Home for Temporary Dwelling During Construction of Permanent Dwelling (Adopted 5/5/97)See Note 7 Manufactured Home (Individual) for Residential Occupancy - Class B (Rev. 5/5/97) See Note 3 Manufactured Home (Individual) for Residential Occupancy - Class A (Rev. 5/5/97) See Note 6 Manufactured Home Supplies and Equipment Sales S X X Manufactured Homes Under the Hardship Class A and B See Note 4 Marinas X X X Mobile Home Park but Excluding Any Mobile Home Sales (Amended 11-17-92, 7/11/94) S S S S Mobile Home Sales and Service X X Modular Homes (Amended 11-17-92) X X X X Monument Sales X X X Motel, Hotel or Motor Court Operations X X Movies, Video Sales and Rentals X X X 120 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Moving and Storage Operations (Amended 12/1/2008) X S S Musical Instrument Sales X X X Newsstand Sales X X X Nonhazardous, Non-Toxic Solid Waste Disposal (Adopted 5/18/92) S S S S S Nursery Operation (Plant) - Agricultural X X X X Nursing Home S S X X Office and Professional Office (Adopted 12/6/99) S X X X X Office Supplies and Equipment Sales and Service X X X Painting Contractors X X X Paving Contractors (Amended 12/1/2008) S Pawn Shop X X X Pet Sales, Excluding Kennel Activities or Outside Storage of Animals X X X Pharmaceutical Sales, Retail X X X Photography, Commercial X X X Planned Building Group (See Article Viii, Section 80) (Added 12/1/03) S X X S Post Office X X X X Private Recreation Club Or Swimming Club Activities Not Operated As A Business Or Profit (Amended 12/1/2008)S S S S S Private Recreation Facilities For Profit (Amended 5/18/92, 7/8/96) S S S S S Public Recreations (Such as Community Center Buildings, Parks, Museums, Playgrounds, and Similar Facilities Operated on a Nonprofit Basis) S X X X Public Utility Station, Bulk Station or Substations (Amended 12/1/2008) S S S S S Radio or Television Studio Activities Only X X Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower (See Note 9 and Article VII & IX) (Amended 11/6/95)S X X X S Railroad Station Operations (Amended 12/1/2008) S S S Railroad Yard Operations S X Real Estate Agencies X X X Reception Centers for Recycling S X X Reducing Salon Care X X X Rest Home S S X X Retailing or Servicing Operations S X X Salvage Operation/Junkyard - Commercial S S Second Hand and Swap Shop Sales X X X 121 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC School, Private or Public (Elementary, Secondary, or Higher Level) (Amended 12/1/2008)S S X X S Solar Energy Systems (Added 10/2/17; Deleted 10/5/20) See Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance Sport Shops X X X Stables, Horse (Amended 4/4/94) X S X Stereophonic and High Fidelity Equipment and Supply Sales X X X STORAGE, HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE NOT PERMITTED IN ANY DISTRICT Storage, Household and Commercial S X X Storage, Open (Amended 5-4-01) S S S Tanning Salons X X X Taxicab Stand Operations (*See Note 5) X X X* X Teaching of Art, Music, Dance, Dramatics, or Other Fine Arts S X X X Temporary Construction Building (Amended 6/6/2005)X X X X X Theater Productions S X X X Tire Recapping X X Tire Sales Centers X X X Tobacco Sales X X X Travel Agencies (*See Note 5) X X X* X Truck Stop X Truck Terminal Activities Repair and Hauling and/or Storage X Variety, Gift and Hobby Supply Sales X X X X Winery (Added 11/1/2004)S X N 0 0.1 ••••-=====::i Miles Map created by Person County GJS 250523 RZ 01-25 Zoning - Exhibit B Person County Department of Planning & Zoning 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B, Roxboro, NC 27573 Telephone (336) 597-7423 MEMORANDUM To: Person County Planning Board From: Margaret A. Hauth, Interim Planning Director Date: May 26, 2025 RE: Options regarding the development regulations in Person County I have been reviewing the various planning ordinances since my arrival in February. I have found a number of conflicts, cross reference errors, and state law reference errors. I expect adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance would have addressed these issues. Since that action doesn’t seem to be immediately forthcoming, I would like to pursue some of this clean-up to keep the county and staff on solid legal footing until the UDO can be revisited. The County Commissioners expressed interest in an update in this regard and they received a substantially similar memo in their June 2 packet. Any feedback they provided will be shared with the Planning Board. This memo breaks the topic into two components: 1) UDO or edits 2) Critical language changes needed There are no fewer than 9 development regulations covering Person County: Planning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Minimum Construction Standards For Private Roads Mobile Home Park Ordinance Ordinance Regulating Automobile Graveyards and Junkyards Ordinance Regulating Sexually Oriented Businesses Solar Energy System Ordinance Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Person County Airport Risks of continuing without edits: Easy legal challenges caused by outdated or conflicting language. Challenging staff-level interpretations that may not be consistent over time. Challenging development environment for applicants due to uncertainty 1) UDO or edits I see four options available to Person County: 1) Adopt the proposed UDO as proposed. 2) Identify the primary areas of concern with the proposed UDO and modify the document into an adoptable format. 3) Consolidate as many freestanding ordinances into the Planning Ordinance as possible and make needed minor corrections along the way. Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 2 of 9 4) Update all the freestanding ordinance to correct cross-refences and conflicts. Consolidation: It would be reasonably easy to consolidate a number of these into the Planning Ordinance. The mobile home parks, junkyards, sexually oriented businesses, and solar energy ordinances all establish detailed requirements for a specific land use. This would ensure that the processes and requirements intended for these uses don’t get overlooked in trying to piece together requirements from two sources. I recommend this option as a reasonable set toward a UDO that addresses some of the risk of the current arrangement. The subdivision regulations, private road standards, flood damage prevention ordinance and possibly the airport ordinance could remain freestanding with little risk. Subdivision has traditionally been handled separately and it may be wise to continue in that vein until there is more permanent staff. Private road standards are a different sort of requirement and best kept out of the planning ordinance. These are often even an appendix or other guidance document not adopted as an ordinance. The Floodplain ordinance ties into Federal requirements and can be left as a standalone with limited risk. The airport ordinance seems quite technical and may be better suited to standalone, but I do not have a strong technical recommendation on this document. The outcome would not be considered a Unified Development Ordinance, but it would reduce the locations someone have to consult during land development. The amendments would steer clear of the downzoning limitations established in state law. It would be my intent to basically cut and paste the appropriate language from the smaller ordinance into the planning ordinance. This will help remove cross reference errors and make sure the review process matches the planning ordinance. The mobile home park ordinance currently refers to a Special Use Permit process that involves the Planning Board and the commissioners. Individual Ordinance Updates: This is also reasonably easy to undertake and may appear to be simpler. Maintaining nine freestanding ordinances provides a real opportunity for updates to be overlooked or processes to be confused. None of these ordinances were updated to reflect the changed planning enabling legislation at the state level. Revisit the draft Unified Development Ordinance I realize the community and the boards have put a lot of work in on the Unified Development Ordinance and may want to move toward adoption of that document. I have not reviewed that document as closely since arriving but am familiar with how UDOs work and their benefits. I believe a number of topics were at the heart of pausing the review: short term rentals, concern about changes to the permitted use table in light of the state law on downzoning, and other concerns. Once those items are clearly listed, I can review the draft document and see what can be pursued in short order and what needs additional work. 2) Critical language changes needed: Regardless of which option above is selected, there are three topics that need clarification or improvement in the current ordinance: Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 3 of 9 1) Permit validity time period – currently all construction projects must be completed within 12 months or pay to renew the permit. With the sizable developments on the horizon, I strongly recommend adjusting this language to have permits expire due to inactivity, not time. 2) Review of combination uses – it is very common for a business to operate as a combination of two uses in the use table. Occasionally, those uses have different review standards. It is typical for an ordinance to require the more stringent review process when uses combine. For example, in my previous locale, they defined restaurants and drive-up windows as two uses. Drive-up windows required a conditional use permit, but restaurants did not. Therefore, when a restaurant with a drive-up window applied, they were reviewed as a conditional use rather than by right. Some provision for minor accessory combinations can be considered. For example, a jewelry store may also do metal work to craft jewelry. This might include soldering & welding, things sometimes seen as industrial. Given the light nature of the work, language can be added to address the minor and accessory nature of this component and indicate it is NOT a combination. 3) Primary & Accessory uses – Related to the topic above, but much broader. a. On the residential side: The ordinance does not indicate whether there can be more than one dwelling on a lot. There appears to be some tradition to allow a dwelling and a garage apartment (at least in the RC district) provided there is adequate well and septic capacity. There also seems to be a tradition that the request for the 3rd dwelling triggers the need for a new lot to be created. Is this meant to extend to a house and a mobile home? Why only garage apartments? Why does the third unit need to be on its own lot? b. On the commercial side: There is no guidance about whether there can be multiple “primary” uses or just one. How much space can an accessory use take up and still be accessory? The industrial uses are very broadly defined, but some things that could be seen as industrial are listed separately in the table. This can make it very difficult to determine whether a use, particularly a complex one, is allowable. Since the ordinance has a process for group developments, it seems the intent is to have one use per lot. Resolving this may take a fair amount of discussion, but it is important to delve into to have a workable ordinance. I look forward to working with you to help put Person County on strong footing to handle current and anticipated development. Thank you for your consideration. Attachments for Planning Board Discussion: A: List of most basic amendments (pg. 4) – request for hearing in July & August B: Consolidation & Individual Ordinance options (pg. 5) – more detail C: Critical language changes (pg. 8) – more details on these critical topics for discussion Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 4 of 9 Attachment A: Basic Amendments Needed Subdivision Ordinance Need 160D reference Handful of locations where the amendment date is listed with X-X-XXX – the correct date needs to be inserted. Planning Ordinance 74-7 - “are” should be “area” 153-2 – add language that staff may initiate an amendment by bringing the proposal to the planning board & have the board vote to schedule the hearing. 153-4 & 154-3- change language to have staff post the sign, not the applicant to fully comply with 160D- 602 155-3 - A newspaper notice for quasi-judicial hearings is no longer required by state law – best to delete this requirement. 156-4 - A newspaper notice for development agreement hearings is no longer required by state law – best to delete this requirement. Special Use permit definition – within the definition “sues” should be “uses” Temporary sign definition – “the message display but” is duplicative & needs to be deleted Bring language creating BOA and PB into the Planning Ordinance. Action Requested: Staff is asking the Planning Board to vote to authorize a public hearing on these amendments for the July Planning Board and August Board of Commissioners meetings. Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 5 of 9 Attachment B: Consolidation option Under the Consolidation option, I propose to simply cut & paste in the language in the standalone ordinances into the current planning ordinance. The Permitted Use table would be expanded to add a handful of uses and allow them as specified in the current standalone ordinances. The definition section would be amended to bring in the terms defined in the standalone ordinances. If the definitions didn’t match for the same term, discussion would be needed to reconcile the two. Add new sections to detail the development standards for these uses. There appears to be space in the section numbering here: 82 – Mobile Home Parks 83 - Junkyards and Automobile Graveyards 84 – Sexually Oriented Businesses 85 – Solar Energy Systems The airport provisions may be able to be integrated in Section 90 – Airport Overlay district. However, Staff is not familiar with airport operations or regulations. Leaving this ordinance as standalone for now is probably safer. Issues that will be corrected: Any review process conflicts can be addressed. Any definition differences can be addressed. More language being in one place helps avoid overlooking any provisions. Questions needing resolution: 1) Mobile Home Park ordinance: a. defines a park as 2 or more mobile homes on a single parcel. The Planning Ordinance defines it as 3 or more. Staff have been using 3 or more. Is that acceptable? b. There is language in the MHP ordinance exempting family & migrant MHP from the ordinance. Staff is unsure how this is legal. How much effort do you want put into preserving this exemption? The exemption for bona fide farms from local zoning may be a source to address the migrant worker portion. c. The Planning Ordinance requires MHP to get a Special Use Permit, although the standards in the MHP ordinance don’t exactly match. Staff proposes to follow the more current Planning & SUP requirements where they conflict with the MHP ordinance. 2) The Junkyard & auto graveyard ordinance: a. calls for permits to be issued to ensure screening is installed. My proposal would be to issue a zoning permit to verify compliance. There would not be an expiration date or formal renewal. Much like home occupation permits – the permit is valid as long as the use operates in compliance. That also allows for enforcement action. b. defines chronic offenders. The updated planning legislation from the state has new provisions on chronic offenders. The new language & processes will be used. c. seems to allow residential junkyard provided they are screened & get a permit. Staff have not come across any record of these permits being issued. 3) The Sexually Oriented Business ordinance: Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 6 of 9 a. Has almost 4 pages of definitions. Do the members feel strongly that this significant detail is necessary? b. Sexually Oriented Businesses are required to get a special use permit. There is also a provision for an annual business permit. This may no longer be allowed as the state removed annual business license authority some time ago. Staff will research and propose language that meets state law. 4) Solar ordinance: a. No special considerations or questions come to mind immediately. Action requested: Call a public hearing to integrate the definitions, requirements, and review processes detailed in the Mobile Home Park Ordinance, Junkyard and Automobile Graveyard Ordinance, Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance, and Solar Energy Systems Ordinance into the planning ordinance by creating sections detailing the review and requirements as each currently exists and correcting conflicts for the July Planning Board and August Board of Commissioners meetings. Individual Ordinance amendment option If the Board prefers to amend the standalone ordinances individually, the same list of amendments noted above need to be addressed, but in the individual texts. Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 7 of 9 Attachment C: Critical language changes background The three areas listed here are reasonably complex and the Planning Board should consider them closely before deciding on the language they prefer to send to public hearing. The suggestions here for issues 2 and 3 are quick examples without deep research into state law of other local ordinances. Staff provided this information to help the board understand the depth and complexity of the issue to help inform their recommendation for next steps. 1) Permit validity time period – currently all construction projects must be completed within 12 months or pay to renew the permit. With the sizable developments on the horizon, I strongly recommend adjusting this language to have permits expire due to inactivity, not time. Person County prides itself on being business friendly. Some significantly large business projects have recently been approved. It is not reasonable to expect those projects to be completed within a 12-month period. The County Farm Park recently had to renew their zoning permit. The fee was X. The same would be required of Certainteed, Enbridge, Duke, Microsoft or any developer, large or small. This is a very unusual provision and applicants are not expecting this additional cost. While state law provides clear authorization for building permits to expire, there is less clear authorization for zoning permits to expire. Many approvals under the planning ordinance qualify as site specific development plans and have set vested rights durations. Zoning permits are administrative, non- discretionary permits and therefore do not qualify as site specific development plans. Common law vesting provisions apply to administrative approvals. A property owner can claim common law vesting if they expend resources in execution of work approved by an administrative permit. I would strongly recommend converting the current language to something more similar to building permits: The draft UDO had language to address this issue. This language is substantially the same was the draft UDO, though additional language in the draft UDO is omitted for simplicity. The strike through text is the current wording to be removed. The italicized and highlighted language would be the new text. a) Zoning Permit Application Issuance. Any zoning permit shall become invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six (6) months of the date of issue, or if the work authorized by it is suspended or abandoned for a period of one (1) year. The zoning permit shall become invalid if the work authorized by it is not completed within one (1) year of the date of issuance of the zoning permit. Any zoning permit expires one (1) year after issuance, unless work authorized by the permit has substantially commenced, as verified by the Administrator or designee. Once work has substantially commenced, a zoning permit shall remain valid through project completion unless the work authorized by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of twelve (12) months. Application may be made to the Zoning Administrator for a new zoning permit to replace any permit which becomes invalid under this section. In the event a new permit is denied by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be made to the Board of Adjustment. Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 8 of 9 2) Review of combination uses – it is very common for a business to operate as a combination of two uses in the use table. Occasionally, those uses have different review standards. It is typical for an ordinance to require the more stringent review process when uses combine. For example, in my previous locale, they defined restaurants and drive-up windows as two uses. Drive-up windows required a conditional use permit, but restaurants did not. Therefore, when a restaurant with a drive-up window applied, they were reviewed as a conditional use rather than by right. Some provision for minor accessory combinations can be considered. For example, a jewelry store may also do metal work to craft jewelry. This might include soldering & welding, things sometimes seen as industrial. Given the light nature of the work, language can be added to address the minor and accessory nature of this component and indicate it is NOT a combination. Section 60 – add language – Combination Uses - When an applicant for a zoning permit to authorize a use of a property is a combination of two or more uses individually listed in the permitted use table, it shall be deemed a combination use. All uses must be permitted in the district within which the permit is sought. The review process for the combination use shall follow the most stringent one listed in the permitted use table for each of the uses to be combined. For example, a use combining a by right use with a special use shall apply for a special use permit for the entire operation, unless the Zoning Administrator finds and documents that the use defined as a special use is minor and accessory to the primary use as to not require this more stringent review. 3) Primary & Accessory uses – Related to the topic above, but much broader. a. On the residential side: The ordinance does not indicate whether there can be more than one dwelling on a lot. There appears to be some tradition to allow a dwelling and a garage apartment (at least in the RC district) provided there is adequate well and septic capacity. There also seems to be a tradition that the request for the 3rd dwelling triggers the need for a new lot to be created. Is this meant to extend to a house and a mobile home? Why only garage apartments? Why does the third unit need to be on its own lot? b. On the commercial side: There is no guidance about whether there can be multiple “primary” uses or just one. How much space can an accessory use take up and still be accessory? The industrial uses are very broadly defined, but some things that could be seen as industrial are listed separately in the table. This can make it very difficult to determine whether a use, particularly a complex one, is allowable. Since the ordinance has a process for group developments, it seems the intent is to have one use per lot. Resolving this may take a fair amount of discussion, but it is important to delve into to have a workable ordinance. Section 60 – add language Primary use – a parcel of shall have a single primary use listed in the permitted use table. The Zoning Administrator shall interpret the list of uses in favor of use and document any interpretation of a use not listed to the next most similar use detailed in the Table of Permitted Uses. A primary use may also be a combination use as described in Section (insert number used if combination use language pursued) Accessory Use Criteria The Zoning Administrator shall use the following criteria to evaluate any use claimed as an accessory use to determine its accessory nature or deem it a combination use with other uses proposed or existing on the site. This evaluation shall be in writing and may be based on easily conducted research in the Text Amendment Memo 5/26/2025 Page 9 of 9 absence of factual or specific evidence provided by the applicant. This evaluation is subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment by any party with standing. Land area allocated to each use. Building square footage allocated to each use. Estimated traffic generated or needed to support each use. Number of people on site (customers or employees or both) engaged in each use. The comparative attraction value of each use to the general public. The comparative intensity of the types of traffic coming to the site for each use (customers, deliveries, etc.) Alternative: This topic is quite complex and may be more than the board members want to take on. Staff can take an interim approach to address the most pressing issue of number of dwellings on a single lot if the board wants to focus on this issue and indicate whether the current tradition should be turned into ordinance language, or some other outcome is more desirable. PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 August 22nd, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Vice Chair George, Chair Walker, Member McFarland, Member James, Member Allen, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated that they did not have any conflicts of interest. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Petition TA-01-24 – Text Amendment TA-01-24 is a request to approve the Person County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), included within the attached Exhibit A: Person County Unified Development Ordinance, which consolidates land development regulations currently within ten (10) individual ordinances, into one (1) consolidated ordinance, for the purpose of providing guiding land development regulations. Chair Walker opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Courtney Tanner, 11003 Connally Ln., Raleigh. She presented her background and expressed concern for about the UDO for maintaining administration, understanding, and ensuring equitability. She referenced Pages 4-21, Section G, Subsection 1, and recommended striking it, for Subsection 2 to be revised to show where the uses are located, and to move the code enforcement provisions for short-term rentals into the code enforcement section of the UDO. The Board decided to keep the regulations as-is. Sherry Wilborn, 221 Woody Dr, Timberlake. She expressed a desire for a summary document of the changes to be available to the general public and to show the impact of the changes to the general public. Julie Maybee, 1037 Younger Rd, Roxboro. She expressed concern for short-term rental regulations and the effects on the occupancy revenue, agreed with needing some short-term rental regulations, but to study regulations more with short-term rental owners and the building regulations. Member Lynch asked if any of the short-term rental units needing a Special Use Permit had one and Mr. Bowley stated that none. He added that short-term rental units inside of Residential zoning districts without a Special Use Permit are not legally non-conforming uses. Chair Walker directed the Board of discuss the UDO comments. Member Lynch stated on Page 4-28, Section 4.6.4.3, Subsection F, Item 2, to move Item 2 to after Item 4, on Page 4-31, Section 4.7.5, to remove the ‘a’ in the second sentence to last sentence to within 1,000-ft of an intersection. Member Lynch stated on 4-39, last line to change responsible party to property owner and to change it in section G, item 3 as well. Member Allen disagreed stating that it has always been the responsibility of the Company who installed the equipment. Mr. Bowley stated we decided to leave the Solar Ordinance just like the original due to it being so thoroughly vetted. The only thing we changed was the language to make it clear for the greater than ten acres and less than 10 acres. We did put the permitted use table back to match what was in the Original Solar Ordinance which did affect your comment for the buffers. Member Lynch stated we had also discussed in section K, subsection e, point 4, to change may to shall. b Page 4-43, Section K to change, Item E, Item 4 to change it to read the panels shall be maintained and may be inspected, on Page 5-57, Section 5.4.3, to add unless otherwise addressed after the provisions of this ordinance, on the Permitted Use Table to add specific uses as ancillary uses. Mr. Bowley stated that he added Accessory Uses as No. 4 in Table Classifications. Member Lynch stated to add dwelling single-family attached and detached to NC. Member Bradsher stated to take Amusement and Arcades out of GI. Vice Chair George stated because the uses were listed together if we take out of GI then we need to take out Indoor and Outdoor Recreation as well. Mr. Bowley asked to clarify if The Board wanted to take it out of GI. Chair Walker agreed with striking them in GI. Member Lynch stated for bus/train/transit terminal, repair or hauling yard to be allowed everywhere except R and to make commercial salvage yard a S in GI and nowhere else. Vice Chair George stated to remove event center from recreation and entertainment uses to office, retail, and service uses. Member Lynch stated she had pharmacy, retail sales and service, and yard garage and estate sales listed as ancillary uses, stated for home occupation definition as any business use conducted by the occupants of a dwelling unit so that the use is incidental and subordinate to the residential use and does not change the dwelling unit use or character as a permitted house, other than a small building mounted sign attached to the dwelling unit, and stated in major modification we removed of the public hearing of the original Special Use Permit. Vice Chair George stated to add definitions, area of special flood hazard definition in, though it was not removed because the word FEMA was placed in front of it per prior Board discussion, assembly hall/lodge, discharging landfill, airport elevation, add buffer as stormwater, and central sewer and water system, which were in the UDO but relabeled, stated for a dwelling single family to strike that it occupies a lot of records, stated to move existing development to the Section E of the definitions, to break out funeral and cremation services, stated add building height, which is in as height, stated for lodging without an onsite manager in Item B, to add campground/RV parks, for movie theater definition to add indoor, to add in non-residential subdivision and regular office definitions, and for preliminary plat, plot plan was removed. Mr. Bowley explained that a plot plan is a type of survey related to residential uses and that survey encompasses plot plan. Vice Chair George stated to add definitions for residuals, repair shop, service station, to add the stream definition in NCAS 02B.02332, in Section 4.6.2.3 to change Section B to 24 months, in Section 4.6.2.4, Section H, to consider an expansion, on Pages 4-14, Section D, to have a 50-ft. buffer, and in Section 4.6.4.2, Pages 4-20, Item 11 to a 50-ft. buffer. Member George stated that on page 4-5, 4.5.1.5, solar facilities are being excluded from the airport overlay overlay and there are provisions in the solar ordinance regarding reflectivity implying they are appropriate. Mr. Bowley stated that the current oridinance disallows solar farms in the airport overlay because there is a solar farm out there but they did not want it out there for flying purposes. Member Lynch stated there was a issue with reflection and other kinds of stuff. Member George stated there were provsions for aroungd the airport measuring reflectivity. Chair Walker called for a motion. Member Allen made the motion to approve the Unified Development Ordinance as amended and Member McFarland seconded the motion. Member Lynch made an addendum, “to the extent that such a complicated document with numerous revisions done within a limited amount of time can be considered consistent.” Member Allen and Member McFarland agreed to accept the addendum to the motion. Vice Chair George made an addendum stating to “ remove the limit on one driveway per parcel and one driveway per contiguous parcel, and to keep the buffer yard for Industrial Uses the same as it is in the current Oridinance which is 150-ft in sq. ft. for plantings, if the parcel can accommodate it.” Member Allen and Member McFarland agreed to the addendum. The Board voted 5-2, with Vice Chair George and Member James voting no, with no justification provided. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member Bradsher motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member James, the Board voted and the motion passed unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:43 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair Barry Walker ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 January 9th, 2025 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair George called established a quorum had been met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member McFarland, Member James, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher, Member Allen, Member Maybee Staff Present: Planner Nicole Talley and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Chair George read the conflict of interest statement and all Members except Member Lynch stated they did not have a conflict of interest. Member Lynch stated she may have a conflict of interest given that her husband’s company may have some involvement with the project and would refrain for discussion on the item. NEW BUSINESS Planner Nicole Talley gave the presentation for Duke Energy Conditional Rezoning. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for public comments and discussion. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for public hearing portion of the meeting. No one from the public showed up to speak. Chair George invited the Applicant, Elizabeth Townsend, to come up and speak and elaborate on the reason behind the Conditional District Rezoning. The Applicant stated that the rezoned area is where they propose the Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Line to be located and that they were fortunate to have the North Carolina Utility Commission approve the project. She stated the air permit had also been granted, and Duke Energy Progress already owned the property. She stated that Duke Energy Progress is just looking to get it rezoned to the correct Zoning Designation for the use. Member Allen and Chair George asked for clarification on which parcel was being rezoned. Planner Talley stated that the Applicant had presented an outline on the larger plat, which did not match the GIS. Chair George stated that the newspaper advertisement seemed to only be for one parcel, but looking at what is on GIS and what was in our packets, it looks like it affects seven parcels. Planner Talley stated the lots are vacant and does not have any information to identify them. Staff used this address to identify the name and area. That is why it states in the advertisement that if any other comments or questions call for clarification, Staff can pinpoint individuals in this area and guide individuals down the road to where the parcel is. That is the only way to identify it. Staff confirmed with GIS in December and January before they advertised and made the packet that this was the most accurate, they had. This information was confirmed with Sallie Vaughn, our GIS director, who confirmed that the area highlighted in the packet was the exact area. All this has been verified with the County Attorney, who confirmed that Staff was well within the legal standards for advertisement and to have the meeting. Member Allen asked why the larger plat was drawn the way it was. Planner Talley stated that the Staff gave the Applicant the statute requirements for minimum site plan requirements, and they have met the minimum requirements. Our Contract planner and Planner Nicole Talley verified this. Member Maybee disagreed, stating it did not meet section 154-2 submission of petitions. It is specific in requesting what is supposed to be shown on a site plan. The application is incomplete, and Member Maybee recommends that this be tabled until the next meeting. Planner Talley stated the application was revised pending previous information and submittal per the contract planner and herself. It was also revised to show all the correct information from the previous submittal from two previous Staff members. This process goes back to May with the previous Staff, the current Staff, and a contract planner to get to this point. Member McFarland asked the Applicant if it was a preliminary drawing that the engineer submitted. The Applicant stated yes. Chair George asked the Applicant if she was the one who filled out the application. The Applicant stated yes. Chair George stated that at the bottom of the application, it lists the site plan requirements, and it seems like some items are missing. Such as the vicinity map, topography of the site at contour intervals no greater than 10 ft, location of perennial or intermittent waters, and 100- year flood plains. Those seem to be missing here, and it is listed in the ordinance as a requirement. Chair George asked why they were not addressed. The Applicant stated that they have done what the current and previous Staff requested and are on their third map. Planner Talley stated that the previous Staff wanted to bring a bubble map for approval from the Board and the Commissioners. Planner Talley would not accept that the first time it was submitted after the previous Director left, but that is what the Staff have been working off of to get to the point the Staff are at now. That is why the Staff had a second submittal that still did not have dimensions or contour lines. The contract planner came in and got it to the point of having more detail than the Original. If the Board wants or needs more information, then it is time for the Board to request it and ask them to provide that to the Board. Chair George stated she was concerned that, after hearing this, according to the ordinance, if the Board does not decide in 30 days, it will automatically go to the commissioners. Planner Talley stated the Board can pinpoint a time frame for them to return to the Board before they go to the commissioner, and the Board can address it that way. Member Maybee disagreed, stating that when something comes to the Planning Board, it needs to be complete and comply with the regulations so that the clock does not start ticking. Planner Talley stated that the Applicant met the minimum requirements for bringing before the Planning Board. Member Allen asked what Duke Energy Progress's plan was to begin construction. The Applicant stated they have just started negotiations with a contractor to construct the first facility, and a second facility will be adjacent to it. They are also looking to do tree clearing, which is being done initially before bringing the contractor onsite, because of the bat and bat nesting requirements. Member Allen asked, once the project begins, will it affect any other properties to the east or south. The Applicant stated that their work would be inside the box, and in the longer term, the installation of the first combined cycle facility will lead to the retirement of units 1 and 4. They will stand there until a future time when units 2 and 3 are retired. Then Duke Energy Progress will schedule demolition of them at that point. It will be up and running before the other one is removed. Member Bradsher asked if there was a time constraint with the air permit. Member James asked if the new plan would promote or support economic growth. The Applicant stated there will be an opportunity for continued employment and new jobs. Due to a need for help with decommissioning of the plants, the tax base will increase. Member Allen asked about the decommissioning and how removing the coal ash would impact the site. The Applicant stated that coal ash basins have been created, and contractors are working now to move the ash into these proper basins that will be covered, which will continue for a very long time. They are working around the clock, and Trans Ash is assisting with that project. Member Bradsher asked if there was any solid waste for natural gas. The Applicant stated it would just be air and water. Member Bradsher asked where to find the air permit. The Applicant stated with the Department of Air Quality. Member Maybee asked if the site was in a protected watershed. Planner Talley stated no. Member Allen asked why they did not rezone the whole parcel. The Applicant stated that he had been part of the original discussion with the previous Director and that the County would appropriately rezone the area because it was a question of why it had been zoned residential originally. The County Attorney had suggested that Duke go through the application process. The County Manager stated that when the project started in the spring, it was viewed as aligning with the Future Land Use Map. The use is industrial, and it was recognized when the comprehensive plan was done that the Zoning District did not match the use for these properties. A few different options were discussed for proceeding. One option was an administrative clean-up, the second was moving forward as a Conditional District Rezoning, and the third was moving forward with just a Rezoning. Staff did settle on in consultation with the county attorney to do the Conditional District Rezoning. The county manager stated that, as far as GIS is concerned, they have been working on a project for the past 1 to 2 years to map these two parcels because GIS did not have the records to map these parcels. GIS Staff happened to find boxes of records to be able to start recording these parcels in GIS. Duke Energy Progress has been pleased that GIS has been able to do that, but it is time-consuming, and Staff have been working on that along with several other things on their plate. Due to this historical omission, some parcels do not have a tax map or numbers assigned. The GIS Director used the map that Duke Energy Progress provided as an overlay on GIS and measured the 500 ft. around all of those for the Planning Staff to send out the written notices. The written notices were not based on the parcel that was advertised. Staff used the Larger Map with the parcel that did not have a tax map and assigned a parcel number to notify the surrounding properties. Planner Talley stated it is basically to the point where Mr. Krulik and Planner Talley are trying to get the process moving. Neither of us expected approval tonight, but the Staff wanted feedback from the Board to get it to a certain point, to get it farther than the Staff could, and to see what the Board wanted to see to get the project approved. She stated that the Board could pinpoint a date and what the Board wants to see from the Applicant. Member Maybee asked the Applicant if they could get the conditions to them by February. Member James stated she did not mind approving with the conditions, but she did not want one Applicant to think they are better than another, and that the Board should be equitable to all Applicants. She stated she would ask for a complete application. Member Brasher asked if GIS understands these are all one parcel but are reflected as separate parcels. Planner Talley stated yes, from Planner Talley’s' understanding, talking with Sallie (GIS Director), it is, but they have not identified all the lines for that specific acreage. Member McFarland asked about the timeframe for getting something uploaded to GIS and corrected. Planner Talley stated she was unsure of the GIS timeframe because they are short-staffed. The County Manager stated she was unsure of the records she was referring to and what they have on hand as far as being able to feed those records into GIS. The County Manager thinks they came across the record in a box in a local attorney's office. The County did not realize that all the data in paper form was needed. Member Allen stated conceptually, based on what Member Bradsher stated, the Board can approve this tonight, but if the parcels are not united, then the Board cannot. The county manager stated that GIS would not be the record to rely upon; it would be the surveys and the deeds. The paper records that GIS exists but will not be 100% accurate. Member McFarland asked the Applicant if they had plans to resurvey the land once this is rezoned. The Applicant stated they did not have plans to resurvey the acreage. Member Bradsher stated he just wanted to confirm that on record, that is the correct parcel, so the County is covered on record that it is the correct parcel, and he would move for approval if there were no more discussions. Chair George stated that she had concerns about the public notice, the incomplete application, and the site plan not meeting all the requirements. Member McFarland stated he would motion to correct all the concerns before going before the Commissioners. Member James agreed. Member Allen asked if the County Attorney should be consulted. Planner Talley stated that the County Attorney had already been consulted on advertising. Member Maybee stated the legal ad could have been phrased better, and she had concerns about it being thrown back to the Board. Planner Talley stated that it aligned with the previous Staff's advertising. The Attorney, GIS, and Staff verified it. Staff did their due diligence above and beyond in verifying this information. Member Allen stated that if the Board were to approve it with corrections, can the Board be assured that those corrections would be accurate. He would not want to pass it on to the Commissioners without it coming back to the Board to verify that the corrections had been made. Member James stated the Board would just need to trust our elected officials to recognize that the conditions had been met. It would be on the elected official if it were not. Member McFarland stated the corrections were minor changes. Member James agreed and stated that it is a way to show that no one is above the other and to act equitably. Chair George asked the Applicant if they would be willing to bring back a site plan that meets the requirements for the next meeting. The Applicant stated they would be willing, but some requirements, like utilities, would not be applicable. Member George agreed and read which ones may be applicable in section 154-2. Member George stated that requirement (a) looked to be met, but requirement (b) was not, and the Applicant needed to add a vicinity map, and all of requirement (c) needed to be met. Member Allen stated that if the Board does not have a Board meeting scheduled in February, the Board would have to advertise it as a special meeting. Planner Talley stated that the Staff would have to make adjustments. She would look at the cutoff times for submittal and ensure that the Staff would have enough time to prepare for the meeting. The Applicant stated it would take some time to get the surveyor and the topography. The normal meeting dates would be fine; they wanted to be good neighbors. Member Allen motioned to table the discussion until the next meeting to allow the Applicant to provide us with the corrected application form. Member Maybee seconded the motion. A vote was made 3:3, and the motion did not pass. Member McFarland motioned to approve Conditional District Rezoning CD-01-24, the Duke Energy Progress LLC. Site to rezone the 297 Acres subject property from Residential to General Industrial zoning designation and find it is consistent with the Adopted Person County/City of Roxboro joint comprehensive land use plan as amended. Bradsher seconded. A vote was made 3:3, and it did not pass. Member Allen motioned to approve Conditional District Rezoning CD-01-24, the Duke Energy Progress LLC. Site to rezone the 297 Acres subject property from Residential to General Industrial zoning designation and find it consistent with the Adopted Person County/City of Roxboro joint comprehensive land use plan with all required revisions, b. Name of project, property owner and Applicant, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates; c. Topography of site, at contour interval no greater than ten (10) feet, location of perennial and intermittent waters, 100-year flood plains; d. Location and approximate size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures within the site and existing buildings and structures within five hundred feet adjacent thereto; met to present to the Commissioners, were not on the Original Site Plan. A vote was made, and it passed 4:2. Chair George opened the meeting portion for discussion of the November 14th, 2024, minutes. Member Allen asked to fix the typo on the top of the page with Members Absent and Members present. Chair George asked to delete the red line version. Member McFarland made a motion to approve as amended. Member Bradsher seconded a vote, which was made, and it passed unanimously, 6:0. Member James asked to add a timer depending on the number of people. In the last meeting, it seemed like the public was allowed to go on and on about certain things. Some comments also negatively stereotyped specific demographics and people groups; Instead of being based on the application. Chair George stated that it ranges depending on the number of people. Member Allen stated Give them 2 minutes, and that is it. Member Lynch stated that if people start to repeat, the Chair must cut them off. Chair George asked for a motion to Adjourn. Member Bradsher made a motion, and Member James seconded it. The vote passed unanimously, 6:0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 May 8th, 2025, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair George established a quorum had been met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member James, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher, Member Allen, Member Maybee Member Absent: Member McFarland Staff Present: Planner Nicole Talley, Interim Director Margaret Hauth, and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Chair George read the conflict of interest statement and all Members stated they did not have a conflict of interest. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Petition RZ-02-24 – A request by the Applicant, Rhetson Companies, Inc. for Rezoning approval on 3 acres of a 44+ acre lot, located off of Boston Rd., Tax Map 64 3 from GI (General Industrial) to B1 (Highway Commercial Business). Chair George opened the floor for Interim Director Hauth's presentation of the Staff report and Mr. Stewart's presentation for the rezoning. Mr. Greg Stewart asked the Board if they had any questions. Member Maybee asked which Surveyor consulted regarding the three acres. Mr. Stewart stated that the engineer used Bohler Engineering. Bohler Engineering will not be designing, but Matt Hastings's team from Summit Engineering will design it. Member Maybee asked if staff had looked at the 3-acre parcel to see if it complies with the Ordinance provisions. Mr. Stewart stated Yes, it had. Member Maybee asked for a scale drawing of the parcel. Mr. Stewart stated that he had presented the survey as part of the application but did not include it in the packet. Mr. Stewart stated that the survey is generally irrelevant because the property needs to be subdivided into three acres before that information is required to submit a permit. Member Maybee stated that the ordinance requirements stated that the plat is required to submit a rezoning request. Mr. Stewart stated that a plat was submitted to the planning staff. Chair George quoted section 153-3, number two, and stated that the Board did not receive a copy of the plat in their packet. That is what they received, which stated 3 acres plus or minus, but what the Board has received shows 3 acres. Chair George asked if there was another survey. Interim Director Hauth stated that it was a survey, and it was received yesterday. Chair George stated the reception was after the cutoff date. Mr. Stewart stated it was requested, but the application was submitted in November last year. Chair George stated that, to her knowledge, none of the Board members has received the survey. Member Lynch asked if the zoomed-in Site Plan showed the full three acres. Mr. Stewart stated that the aerial reflecting the 3-acre parcel in yellow was a more accurate reflection of the 3 acres. Mr. Stewart stated that the parcel survey has been submitted to the planning staff. Member Lynch stated the survey was submitted yesterday. Mr. Stewart stated it was submitted yesterday at the initial request of the planning staff. Member Lynch stated that every Applicant is supposed to follow the rules. Mr. Stewart stated that the planning staff is responsible for reviewing and verifying that the application is complete. They should not have let the project in on this meeting if it was incomplete. The Applicant stated they submitted in November; the idea that the survey was not received until yesterday makes it invalid. The project was applied for over 6 months ago. Member Lynch asked if the staff had a copy of the survey. Hauth stated that she did not have it with her. Member Maybee stated that all the Board can do is follow the Ordinance. The Board does not direct it to anybody. It is just a part of the requirements for it. With the site plan stating it is a commercial use, it could be any use in the highway business district. Interim Director Hauth stated that it could be of any use in the B-1 district. The site plan is conceptual, and there is no way the Applicant can promise that is what he will deliver. The Board cannot compel him to deliver exactly what is on the site plan. It is a general-purpose rezoning, and any use allowed in B-1 could be allowed. Member Maybee asked if the property backs up to the creek. Mr. Stewart stated they would have to get permits from the NC Department of Environmental Quality, which regulates the creek buffer. Chair George asked for clarification on whether the County has deadlines for submission of an application and materials, and that deadline was significant before yesterday. Interim Director Hauth stated yes, and as far as she knows, the application met the deadline. Planner Nicole Talley stated that there have been multiple hands in these projects. The case is with many projects that have come to the Board. Staff have just been trying to get it here for the Board's review and allow the Board to help guide the Applicant. Mr. Stewart stated that they met the deadline by six months. Member Maybee motioned to move it to the next meeting for consideration. With a copy of the Site plan and ensuring all the information listed in section 153-3 of the current planning and zoning ordinance as of May 3rd, 2021. The Interim Director suggested the public hearing could be continued until a specific date, so the staff does not have to re-advertise. Member Maybee agreed. Member Lynch seconded and asked for a discussion. The Board discussed how best to continue the meeting to a certain date. The Board voted, tied 3:3. Discussion amongst the Board continued. Member Maybee motioned to recess this meeting to a date before the County Commissioner's Meeting to rehear this request. Member Lynch seconded. The Board voted and tied 3:3. Member Lynch asked staff if anything on the survey would concern the Board. Interim Director Hauth stated she did not review it in detail but wanted to verify that it was the 3 acres that looked like the conceptual site plan that went into the agenda packet because she had not seen the survey and was concerned about it not meeting the Ordinance requirement. Planner Nicole Talley stated she did not have any concerns. Member Lynch asked what the use would classify as. Interim Director Hauth stated that all the uses listed as an X or an S in the B-1 column are available. Member Lynch asked why B-1. Interim Director Hauth stated that the Applicant asked for B-1. Member Lynch asked the Applicant why B-1. The Applicant stated they requested B-1 because Retail is not listed as a use in GI. Chair George stated the proposed contract states in section 21 page 7 it does states that the seller aims to restrict the following direct competition; Family Dollar, Bills Dollar Store, Dollar Tree, Dollar Zone, Variety Home Sale, Dollar Express, Ninety Nine Cents Only, Maxway, Super Ten, Planet Dollar, Big Lots, Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, or any Walmart concept. Member Lynch asked the Applicant if DOT reviewed the Site Plan. The Applicant stated the DOT. has seen the site plan, and that is where they wanted the driveway. Originally, the driveway was 50' closer to the right on the plan size. For traffic concerns, they like the driveways to match up to prevent people from turning left and right on different driveways. That is the safest place to put the entrance based on DOT. Standards. To answer Member Lynch's question more directly, the DOT. will not give us an official answer until the team submits an official packet. They will only give us a desktop review, and they have given us a desktop review of that entrance. Member Lynch asked if this would create a four- way stop. The Applicant stated that roadways, entrances, and driveways are the preview of the NCDOT. No County has a preview of where a driveway can and cannot go. Member Maybee asked how the parcel reflects on the Future land use map. The Applicant stated it reflects a light green medium density. Member Lynch asked the owner about his thoughts on the rezoning. The Property Owner stated that he intended industrial use when he bought the parcel. He did not go before any board to get it zoned as industrial, nor did he know how it became General Industrial. He intended to build a warehouse for Collins and Napier, but they were going bankrupt then. The creek on the back side of the property sets that part of the property apart from the rest of the property. The section facing 501 is ideal for retail or another business, but to tie in the rest of the property will not be easy because of the creek. The rezoning would not affect the rest of the property, and the highest and best use would be some highway business. Member Lynch asked if dividing the property would cause future development issues. Mr. Newell stated that the creek creates an island in that section of the property, so it would not prohibit industrial use on the rest of the property. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for the public to speak. Jessica Bowers, 127 Hargett St., Raleigh. Mrs. Bowers directed the Board to exhibit C in the packet, showing the property's extensive use today. If the property owner were to release us today, he could apply for a junkyard there. That is not what he plans to do with Rhetson. Mrs. Bowers stated she respectfully asks the Board to consider the rezoning request. Mrs. Bowers thought it would be best to use the guiding principles in the Zoning Packet if the Board had not been able to look at it. Mrs. Bowers stated to read Principle 2.1 and explained how this downzoning would comply with it. Jimmy Womack, 130 Cadale St., Mr. Womack stated there was no sewage access. Mr. Womack also asked if the meeting was to be recessed or if the Board had made a decision. Chair George stated it was to be determined by the Board's vote. Member Maybee stated that rezoning the property to commercial would not be consistent with the future land use plan. Member Lynch stated, unfortunately, that some of what happened with comprehensive is a problem. Member Maybee stated that it is a policy. Member Lynch asked if all the power plants are reflecting on it and said that she was looking at the current one, and this GI property does not look to be listed. Interim Director Hauth stated that one can say that GI is not consistent with the RC designation. So, there is wiggle room. The Land Use plan does not provide much guidance in this case. MOTION: Member Lynch made a motion "I hereby move to approve Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-02-24, for the Rhetson rezoning request on Boston Road to rezone the ±3-acre Subject Property from a G-I (General Industrial) to B-1 (Highway Commercial) zoning designation, and find it is consistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan" because according to guiding principle 2.1 discussing Designate sufficient developable land and sites to support economic growth. This parcel is in an area with several B-1 type activities, which feels reasonably consistent with Principle 2.1. It may provide Jobs and convenience to residents in the area. Vice Chair Allen seconded. VOTE: The Board voted and passed 4:2. Member Maybee wanted the record to reflect that she opposed it because the application was incomplete and did not have the Site plan required as part of the Ordinance. The proposed change is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. The Land Use plan was adopted after the property was zoned, and it was General Industrial, according to testimony from Mr. Newell. Chair George stated that she opposed it because it did not meet the requirements of 153-3, number 2. Which states for Amendments to the Official Planning Map, a map drawn to scale showing the exterior boundaries of the lot(s) which the proposed map amendment will cover; and it was not on any entrance merits of the individual case. Item 2: Petition TA-01-25 – A request by the Applicant, Hyco Solar, LLC, for Text Amendment approval of the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for Interim Director Hauth's Presentation of the Staff Report. Member Maybee asked Interim Director Hauth if this would create an overlay district where this could be of potential use. Interim Director Hauth stated conceptually, but she would not look at it that way because it is more like establishing a spacing requirement. Member Maybee asked the staff how many properties are within that area. Interim Director Hauth stated she asked GIS to provide a percentage of the County in that area. Chair George stated and asked for clarification on what she received in the packet and what she saw in the printout for tonight, which is different. What was in the mail reflects an upside-down L, whereas the printout shows a square of the top northwest part of the County. Is the staff clear on what is being requested. Interim Director Hauth stated she asked GIS to prepare that proposed Text Amendment map, which said 4 miles along either shared boundary. The Applicant would be the best one to talk to regarding their request. Applicant Harrison Cole came up and gave his presentation. Interim Director Hauth stated whether it is a four-mile L or an a four-by-four square. If it was not the L, it was her mistake. Mr. Cole stated it was a square. Interim Director Hauth stated she did email the printout on Monday which was when she received it. Mr. Cole stated the application last year and the supplementary material in February. Chair George asked whether the staff had the material in February. Mr. Cole stated yes. Member Lynch asked how the Applicant defines a 400-acre parcel. Mr. Cole stated that the parcels are just images from GIS. So, any parcel over 400 acres in GIS is possible. Mr. Cole stated it would be individual parcels. Member Maybee asked how many Acres were in the square. Vice Chair Allen stated that it was a little over 10,000 acres. Mr. Cole agreed. Vice Chair Allen stated that if the Board changes level four to accommodate 100 or more. Assuming the Applicant could go to 1,000. What does the Applicant foresee the project size to be. Mr. Cole stated candidly that it would be more than 400 acres, but by the way the team wrote this amendment, the Project would have to come back before the Board to review the Site plan. Chair George stated she had seen proposed and existing solar facilities and believed one was in this area. Could the Applicant remind the Board of the number of publicly stated acres. Mr. Cole stated the total parcel is 1,200 acres, the total fenced line is 730, and the total solar is about 430 acres. Chair George stated that there would be 1,200 acres in the parcels posted on this publicly available website. Mr. Cole stated yes, it goes from 1,200 to 730 because Person County has large setback requirements that the Applicant is more than willing to comply with, and a 150-ft vegetative buffer requirement, which the team has hired a landscape architect to look at as well. Vice Chair Allen asked if Cypress Creek owned other solar parcels in Person County. Mr. Cole stated that they did not own the parcels but owned a project. That is the Perkins Solar Site, which is off Perkins Dr. Vice Chair Allen asked if Duke Energy was involved in the process of complying with this Project. Mr. Cole said they have worked with Duke for 4-5 years. The team has two applications and agreements with Duke. Vice Chair Allen asked if the Applicant had only seen one Project. Mr. Cole said yes, this is the only person in the Person County queue. Vice Chair Allen asked that to accommodate the 400 acres, the Applicant has to have a 4 square x 4 square mile area to look at. Mr. Cole stated the team wanted to account for every aspect, which is why it is a little over-encompassing. Traditionally, solar projects are square. This is more north to south, so it stretches out further, but the width is much smaller, creating a rectangle rather than a square. That is why the Project needed a larger area to ensure it is all-encompassing. It does not go to the Virginia Line, but the team wanted a line that stops where people know where it ends. Vice Chair Allen asked how the Applicant was procuring the land. Mr. Cole stated they had a lease option agreement with the landowner. Member Maybee stated that there are other solar companies to which this proposed text amendment would benefit. Mr. Cole stated there are others, but our team is the only one with an option agreement with the landowner in Person County. Member Maybee compared the Applicant's slide on conservation land suitability and the future land use map about land use coverage. The same plan that was adopted states that the USDA uses satellite imagery to create land cover maps in the United States, and in Person County, it shows this land as forestry, Agriculture, and Pastures. Mr. Cole stated that the land the team is looking for is used for grazing cattle, and the team wants to work with the agricultural community on sheep grazing. Several solar farms in Person County utilize sheep grazing as well. The project team hopes to go from one form of grazing to another, just with the solar structures. Member Maybee stated that when it is in a rural area, again, going back to our comprehensive land use plan, it is one of our goals to preserve prime agricultural and sensitive lands. Mr. Cole stated that the team is very conscious of this, which is why the project team has spoken with several community members. The project team focused on ensuring this land still had an agricultural purpose. The team believes the sheep grazing would be best for this. Member Maybee asked if there were any issues with them meeting the buyers. Mr. Cole stated no, but goats do. Sheep are fine. Cypress Creek tried to use shepherds and sheep herders in the past as a contract structure, but it did not work out. The team feels better about this because the team has someone in the County who has experience and knows how to do it with these projects. Member Maybee asked how many decimals the solar panels generate. Chris Sandifer; 3118 Green Road, Spring Hope, NC. Engineer Mr. Sandifer stated that the central inverters are large, and the last 15 plans I have seen use 1250 to 1500 central inverters with a decibel pressure of 72 db. A fan blows across the electrical components to keep them cooler so they can put out the rated output. It is typically nestled in the panels' interior to keep the leads from the panels to the inverter as short as possible. It is typically in the middle of the property, not the edge, so an individual cannot hear it at the boundary. Mr. Cole stated that for the Project, the team owns within the city limits, they cannot hear anything if an individual is outside the fence line. Candidly, it is also cheaper to have all the wiring centrally located. Vice Chair Allen asked about the buffers and the vegetative covers; they will not be visible to anybody. Mr. Cole stated that the team will not guarantee that no one will ever see it, but it will do its best to buffer it by following the Person County Ordinance requirements. The team cannot guarantee that because depending on the land's topography, there is a chance that a person might see it if a person drives by, but a person cannot see it at street level. Member Lynch stated in the engineer's report that the text is a negotiated outcome, starting with the Applicant in November and ending with the version included in the packet. Who was involved in these negotiations. Mr. Cole told us and the Staff in January. Which is when the team talked about the application the team submitted in November and learned the team needed to find more information. Then they gave us a deadline in February, and the team submitted that information in the packet by that deadline. Member Lynch asked why the Applicant was Hyco Solar, and in another Area, it states Cypress Creek. What is the difference. Mr. Cole stated Cypress Creek Renewables is the company he works for, he is based out of Asheville, but the main Office is in Durham, NC. Hyco Solar is the sole entity owned wholly by Cypress Creek. It is structured because the overall parent company owns these entities. The team does these projects as single entities, so when the team goes to financing, negotiations, and signing construction contracts, it is under the one project name instead of the full company name. Member Lynch stated and asked in the report if they list the area as covering 35%, but the Board knows that is no longer correct. Do staff or the Applicant know the area and is the Applicant aware of the additional text changes. Mr. Cole stated yes. Member Lynch asked how the public was informed about this. Interim Director Hauth stated the standard as required by state law. No piece of land is involved, and there is no place to put up a sign or send notices because it is a text amendment. Member Lynch asked who prepared the executive summary. Mr. Cole stated He did, and it was submitted February 3rd. Member Lynch asked where it says the house bill requires the utilities to take the above approach, and that the Applicant was a utility. Mr. Cole stated they are considered an independent power producer and Duke would be the utility. Member Lynch asked why it refers to a conditional rezoning, which, according to this report is quasi-judicial, but what is currently before the Board is legislative, and those are very different in how things proceed. Planner Nicole Talley agreed. Mr. Cole stated that the team wanted to design it so that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners can approve or deny it based on its merits. Member Lynch stated that the Applicant stated the Project was sustainable and would increase tax revenue. Mr. Cole gave a rough estimate of the tax revenue the Project would bring in, stating that over 40 years, it would be around 5-7 million, depending on the value of the equipment. Chair George asked to break it down over an acre over a year. The Engineer, Mr. Storch, stated he would have to calculate it. Member James asked for examples of solar farms under Cypress Creek that are 1000 acres or more, and the positive or negative impacts on the County or wildlife. Mr. Cole stated that Cypress Creek owns and operates 5-6 projects over the eastern part of North Carolina, which they own and operate from the Durham Control Center. Mr. Cole stated he had been to the one in Boyd County, where a farmer had land that did not work for blueberries and asked them how he should make this land work for his family. Cypress Creek ended up putting a solar project there. Cypress Creek's biggest issue is that the vegetative buffers are sometimes not taken care of as needed. Then we get a letter from the County or the Planning and Zoning department and fix it. Member James asked the Applicant to explain the transmission. Mr. Cole stated they chose this area because the team had willing partners; two, it was a rural part of the County with much open space. It also has existing transmission lines. Our proposal will limit projects within this area, and if our project falls through, another company could come in and develop there as well. The team has a project there but does not want to open a solar farm all over Person County. When consulting with the community, the number one concern was that they did not want it throughout the County. Member James stated what else Cypress Creek Renewables had done with the County. Mr. Cole stated that the neighbors of the proposed project have held two or three open houses where the team sent them mail or said invited the public to meet the project team and see the project plan to give us feedback. Some neighbors have even said the 200-ft setback is good, but the individual would like it to be 500 ft. The team said great; and the team could incorporate that. The team has talked to about 85% of the property's neighbors, and most have no objections. The team believes some of the neighbors support it. The team has also been working with various civic groups to regain our name in Person County and show that the team aims to be a good long- term partner. The team works with PCC to develop the workforce development program and other non- profits in the area. The team focused on education in those areas, and this will be our third year providing scholarships to students in the County. With the workforce development program, the team also works with Dominion and Duke. So that a beginning electrician can advance. Member Maybee asked if there were similar transmission lines near the Mayo plant. Mr. Cole said maybe, but he did not know. Member Maybee asked if the Applicant met with 85% of the property owners. Mr. Cole stated the adjacent property owners. Member Bradsher asked if the Applicant had only met with property owners in this area. Mr. Cole stated for this specific spot. Member Bradsher stated that in this 4 x 4 square, the team allows the Applicant to have free rein to do other stuff, so the Applicant may not have interviewed other community members where another proposed site was. Mr. Cole stated yes, but that would be a new application, and the neighbors would receive the notice. Vice Chair Allen asked Duke what they thought about not having a level four system permitted outside this geographic position. Does Duke believe this is the best place to place a large solar farm instead of another area. Mrs. Beth Townsend, 25 Burlington Rd. Mrs. Townsend stated they had not researched to make that determination, but Cypress Creek has done its homework. Member Bradsher asked if the Applicant reached out to survey the soil and water conservation and local agriculture people who may be using this and may be affected by these future sights. Mr. Cole stated the landowner was here and could speak to the specific site, but not everyone else. The engineer, Mr. Storch, stated that, in response to the question, per acre per year depends on what the Board looks at. If the Board looks at the solar acreage, it is 250-430 dollars per acre per year. If the Board looks at the full 1,200 acres, it will be roughly 105-150 per acre, depending on the final value of the Project's construction. Chair George asked if that included the general assembly's write-off and depreciation. Engineer Mr. Storch stated yes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for the public to speak. Mr. Sidney Thompson, 1431 Barker Rd. Mr. Sidney Thompson stated that his wife and he owned the property. They have lived and worked in Roxboro their whole lives. The solar farm was the best chance to get some potential income without having to work their whole lives. He would appreciate it if the Board approved of it. Thomas Schumaker 301 S. Daniel St. Raleigh, NC. Thomas Schumaker, the state director for Conservatives for Clean Energy, spoke to the Board about the importance of solar energy for economic growth and energy independence in North Carolina. He emphasized that the proposed text amendment would integrate solar facilities into the energy hub of northwest Person County, enhancing its role as a significant energy provider. Schumaker highlighted the area's existing energy infrastructure and limited residential neighbors as factors supporting this development. He argued that the text amendment would benefit the local economy and energy independence while balancing landowners' rights with economic growth. Solar energy is a fiscally responsible land use that would generate revenue, create jobs, and attract large corporations seeking clean energy sources. Schumaker thanked the Board for their consideration and urged them to support the amendment, which he believes will propel Person County forward in energy policy. Johnny Rogers 945 Woodsdale Rd. From 945 Woodsdale Rd, Johnny Rogers shared that he and his wife moved to Person County in 2001 to pursue their dream of establishing a family farm focused on cattle and sheep grazing, which they named Rogers Cattle Company. In 2015, they began grazing sheep on solar farms in the area, becoming early adopters of this innovative practice. Their approach utilizes regenerative and managed grazing techniques to enhance soil and natural resources, ensuring that solar farmland remains agricultural. Mr. Rogers highlighted the significant importation of lamb in North Carolina, noting that most lamb consumed in the U.S. is imported, primarily from countries like New Zealand and Australia. Increasing sheep grazing on solar farms aims to meet the growing demand for American lamb while improving local agricultural lands. This proposal will help them continue expanding their business and hire employees as they look for assistance in achieving their goals. Claudia Berryhill, 279 Knolls of Hyco. Mrs. Berryhill highlighted that the community in Person County opposed mega solar parks, prompting the Commissioners to create an ordinance with size limits and spacing standards for solar farms. She expressed concerns about potential amendments to this Ordinance, particularly regarding the solar farm's size, fair competition, and the protection of rural lifestyles, ecosystems, landscapes, and farmland. Additionally, she noted the potential negative impacts on tourism and development. Mr. Anthony Horton, 7233 Hurdle Mills Rd. He shared his concern that there was a reason the Commissioners put in the Ordinances they did, which was to stop solar from taking over the County. He stated his humble opinion that the Board should not allow a level 4 system for that reason. Chair George asked if the Board had questions. Vice Chair Allen asked if the Project could go smaller. Mr. Cole stated it was possible. The way the current ordinance states that nothing over 100 acres is allowed to be submitted would mean that there are no current applications due to the size limitations that the utilities impose. Vice Chair Allen asked for clarification. What the Applicant is saying is that, from now on, everything needs to be over 100 acres. Mr. Cole stated that, looking at other counties, that is the case. Member Lynch asked if there is a minimum requirement to be able to work with a utility to become a part of the grid. Mr. Cole stated yes. Mr. Cole stated that it depends on the amount of power they need. The state regulates it so that anything above one megawatt has to be sold directly to the utility. So, if the Applicant has commercial or residential use, the Applicant can use up to 0.99999 megawatts. It is the meter feeding directly into it, but everything that goes over goes to the utility. Member Lynch asked for clarification. Let us say an individual has a large manufacturing facility but does not want to do a 400–500-acre facility. The individual wants to do 100 acres. Mr. Cole says the individual could not do that as a manufacturer because that would be over the threshold. The individual would be forced to sell it, but they would not take it because it would not be enough. The state has made a law prohibiting individual manufacturers from selling directly to Utilities. Mr. Cole stated that these are laws of the state. Mr. Cole stated there is a common middle ground called a green tariff or third-party sale for energy. The way that works in the Carolinas is called the Green Source Advantage Program. It is a triangular relationship between the project, the manufacturer, and Duke Energy. All three parties will agree. Then, the project would sell the energy to the facility, and the utility would give them a bill credit or add a cost for paying their electric bill. It is a trilateral agreement. The individuals can do that, but there are limitations to the program depending on where the individual is in the state. That also includes municipalities. As with anything, the larger the facility, the better the economic scale. So, going larger means the individual can produce energy cheaply. From what Cypress Creek has seen throughout the state, the project must be at a certain price point, or it does not make sense to them. Member Lynch stated that there could be, but it was not likely. Member Maybee stated that in other jurisdictions, they have solar farms that are under 100 acres and sell directly to utility companies. Mr. Cole stated it was under the old and new laws, such as House Bill 951. The ones under the old laws are considered 5 megawatt projects, similar to what a person sees along 501. They are grandfathered, but new projects must abide by the new laws. There will be no new projects if they do not allow for a level 4 size unless they develop a new program that allows for that size. Vice Chair Allen asked what percentage of Duke Energy's overall requirement Person County would meet if the Board allowed this. Mr. Cole stated it would be deficient. Mr. Cole does not know the exact percentage, but state law states that by 2035, utilities must have a 70% carbon reduction and then 2050 carbon neutral. This project by itself, Mr. Cole does not want to guess, but it will be a small percentage. Engineer Mr. Storch stated it would be 5% for a procurement of 1500 megawatts for a year. Member Maybee stated that it could also include wind farms. Mr. Cole stated this procurement is only solar. Member Maybee stated that they can have wind farms, and some of their permitting requirements require that they have wind farms. Mr. Cole stated it is an option. Member James asked the staff to state in the section for 2.7, Member James liked the idea of the 4 x 4 box for solar, but how will it be named. Interim Director Hauth asked if this was in the packet in section 8. Member James stated Yes. Interim Director Hauth stated she read the language and interpreted it differently. It does seem the Applicant does have some language that needs to be made specific. Interim Director Hauth liked their language when stating a four-mile-by-four-mile square. Maybe it is the difference between a “and” an “or.” The "And" is the trick because you have to see that it is within four miles of Virginia "and" within four miles of Caswell County. That makes it square and not an L. It is clear from the application and the materials that they intended it to be a square. Member James stated that one thing she liked about the UDO was the maps; if this were to go forward, thinking about the language, that would be a helpful source for Applicants. Member James also stated that section 9 states a Special Use or a CDR, and in looking at what the Ordinance currently has, level 3 is all special use. Which way is the Applicant moving for level 4. A CDR comes before the Planning Board and commissioners, whereas a special use goes to the Commissions. Interim Director Hauth stated her understanding is that an Applicant could do a special use or a conditional district if the base zoning of the property were already zoned B-1, the Applicant could do either and move it to highway conditional. Looking at the zoning map, there are few options other than the plants already zoned that way. Interim Director Hauth stated that the recommendation of a map is a good one and would be helpful. Member Lynch stated she attended the meetings when they were putting the Ordinance together, and she recollected that the Planning Board was allowing for more acreage, but the Commissioners knocked down the acreage. Member Lynch stated she was concerned that the square seemed like spot zoning, it is kind of just for this Applicant, and what if another customer wants to do another somewhere else. She was uncomfortable with the concept, but it concerns her that the amendment will do everything the Ordinance requires for levels 1 through 3 and require the same thing for 4. This proposal takes solar farms to a max of 100, to what will probably be at least 400 to 500, which could be, for all the Board knows, much higher because the amendment does not have a limit. The Board needs to look at the Ordinance and see if what would be okay for 100 would be okay for 1,000. The Board may want to do other things. It is much bigger than a text amendment. Member Maybee asked if the Board wants to involve the agricultural community or the Agriculture Advisory Board. Vice Chair Allen stated he was concerned with the language of 100 acres or more, and if the Board proceeds, He thinks the Board should still set a limit. He stated this does seem like spot zoning or an overlay and precludes other areas of the County that may be more suitable for something of this scale. Mr. Bradsher agreed. Member James stated she wanted to move forward, but the text needs to be cleaned up and clarified. The location needs to be reviewed, and does the Board want the same thing for level 3 as level 4. Member James asked for some case studies on what other counties have done. She appreciated the Applicants reaching out to the community and the community members coming to speak about it. She stated that her stance on agriculture is that not everything is agricultural. If the property owner wants to do something with the land, farmer or not, that is the property owner's decision. Chair George stated her concern is that the Applicant did not address how they manage their solar farms, but because this is a large area of the County, there is a potential for other solar farms to come in, which may not behave neighborly to the citizens. The Board recently went through the UDO, which was updated, and verbiage was added. She would be more comfortable looking at it as a whole. If these proposed changes were to be made, the Board could not retroactively ensure neighborliness. It seems that Cypress Creek would meet those standards, but Chair George thinks it would be better to have a more thorough review for good planning and avoid negative impacts. Vice Chair Allen stated that if the Board wanted to extract what is in the UDO and put that in here, that may not be in the best interest, given that the Commissions have not approved of the UDO. Chair George stated she is not recommending the whole UDO but feels that this portion may aid staff in their research. Member Lynch stated the Board needs to consider some of our ideas. Member Lynch stated she was concerned about runoff and microclimates. Vice Chair Allen asked whose job it would be to do the research. Interim Director Hauth stated it sounds like the Board is tweaking the Applicant's application. Planning staff can do that analysis, share it with the Applicant, and see what they are willing to accept and are not. The Board can hold this public hearing open for some adjustments and changes made after the closure of a public hearing and after it has had a vote. Staff could do that analysis and come back next month and work with the Applicant to come to a common ground and bring it back to see if the Board is closer to a resolution. Member Lynch stated that the scope of a text amendment is too big, and she wants to reject this concept. If our planners or Commissioners feel like, because of this House Bill, the Board needs to go up and do something different. She is uncomfortable making a text amendment this large until someone convinces her otherwise. Member Maybee stated they came to us looking at whether the Board wanted to approve it. The Board should look at it as it is presented to us, whether to approve it or not. If it is a bigger issue, the Board and staff need to inform other stakeholders about the impact of the projects on over 100 acres. It was discussed years ago about the feeling and getting the stakeholders together to get input to see if a text amendment would benefit everybody. Member James stated that when the Board had the Moriah Energy Center, the Board did not go through all of this, which was more evasive. It could be potentially more harmful to the environment. The Board had 200 or more people come out for that, and the Board still immediately passed that. Solar is not that evasive and better for the environment, animals still come out, and solar farms still have things growing. Why is the Board going this deep for solar when the Board did not do that for the Moriah Energy Center or Duke when they changed their coal plants. Coal plants are harmful and have harmed North Carolina in many ways. They only get fined barely 200,000 dollars, visible on the EPA site. Why is the Board going this deep just for solar, which is not as evasive as certain things the County already has or is currently building. When the Board had a room with 10 times as many people saying no, the Board immediately passed it. Member Lynch stated that not all the Board members voted yes on that. Member James stated that the Board had people who lived in the area who got up and said, "This is what the property owner wants to do with their land.” The Board had an Applicant before with solar, and it was the same thing. It is what the property owner wants to do with their land. It is not as evasive. The Applicant had wildlife to water, and the Board still could not let it go through, but the Board is going through extra lengths. She suggested tightening the text so the Board could move forward from there. They still have more work to do because the Board will spend a year and a half, and the UDO and Cypress Creek will disappear. MOTION: Member Maybee moved that Hyco Solar LLC proposed text amendment is not reasonable or in the public interest to allow the establishment of the Solar Energy Project of exceeding 100 acres. It is inconsistent with the Person County and City of Roxboro Comprehensive Land Use Plan's Guiding Principles and Objectives, and the text celebrates our rural character and lifestyles based on information presented this night. About the impact of agriculture and the locations of the farms, there is a lot more impact. Member Lynch seconded it. VOTE: Chair George asked for a discussion. Member James stated there is no impact on the land, and the Applicant provided Information on that. Member Bradsher stated He did not think the Board is looking at a specific piece of land right here. These other projects were specific parcels of land. Member James stated she agreed. The Board voted, and it passed 5:1. Item 3: Approval of the Planning Board Meeting Schedule of 2025 Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for the approval of the Planning Board Meeting Schedule for 2025. Member James made a motion, which Member Maybee seconded. The Board voted, and it passed unanimously. Item 4: Approval of the Planning Board Minutes Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for the approval of the Planning Board Minutes. Chair George stated that the Board reviewed the Minutes from March to January 2025, Interim Director Hauth stated, except for August. Chair George asked if there were any comments on the period from March 14th through November 14th, excluding August 22nd. Member Maybee made a motion and requested that they be placed on the website once they have an approval vote. Member Lynch seconded. The Board voted, and it passed unanimously. Chair George stated that January 9th minutes should be written in the third person, removing the we's, I's, and myself's. Chair George asked to review it for spelling corrections. Chair George stated that the requirements should be added to the third page, first paragraph, line 28. Chair George asked that the vote be corrected from 6:6 on the last line of the paragraph. Chair George asked above the last line to add the required conditions. Chair George stated in the second paragraph of page 3, first line, to add the discussed minutes. Item 5: Discussion of Text Amendments Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to discuss text amendments. Interim Director Hauth stated that during her time here, she had the chance to review the planning ordinance and all the other land use development ordinances in the county. She has created a list of 30 items that need to be tightened. The intent was for the UDO to capture a vast majority of those. Since staff do not know the schedule for that, and the planning ordinance does not speak to the process, staff do not know precisely what the process is to initiate a text amendment. Interim Director Hauth asked if she could bring that list and have the Board review it at the next meeting and prioritize it with the State Law references. Interim Director Hauth found some cross reference issues that are just cleanup and do not change anything. Interim Director Margaret asked the Board to identify others who change the Ordinance. Member Maybee stated she would like to look at the Bylaws again. Chair George asked if she had specifics. Member Maybee stated she wanted to look at things to clean up administratively, like applications and public hearings, about the rules and things such as that. Chair George stated that, given the current workload of staff and the work that the Board is asking them to put into the solar ordinance, it may be good to delay that as a lower priority. Work still needs to be put in the minutes, and whether or not to allow for this proposed tier 4. It may be too large to ask staff to tackle multiple tasks besides the proposed text amendments that staff have already suggested. Member Maybee stated she thinks there are parallels in our existing ordinance, quorum, voting, meeting, procedures, and minute preparation. Member Maybee would like a minute timeline for when the Board receives minutes. It needs to be a reasonable time after a meeting, so it is fresh in the Board's mind. It is not easy when the Board looks at the minutes from last March. The bylaws could reference it, so the Board needs it when the agenda packets go out. Planner Talley stated that some things must be left for a permanent full-time director. Member Maybee motioned that minutes be prepared and ready at the next meeting. Staff Brandon states, for the record, that most of these minutes are completed almost the next day after the meeting to ensure attendance at the next meeting. Chair George stated the reason minutes were not brought before the Board was to be timely in getting things to the Commissioners, and at that time, minutes were considered a lower priority. Staff had the minutes ready and had not given them to the Board for review. Member Lynch stated the Board is seeing the results of a difficult period when the Board had two monthly meetings. The UDO was item after item, making it challenging to do minutes. She stated she agreed, but in some cases, the minutes were correct and meticulous because of the UDO. Member Lynch stated that with the packet, applicants cannot expect to hand things in at the last minute. It is understood that the staff realized something after the fact. If applicants want to bring something in, there must be a time for the Board to have it. It is uncomfortable for the Board to have the applicant bring in a packet they hand to the Board, especially when the Board does not have PowerPoint. Interim Director Hauth stated it is acceptable to put in the Board's standards that the Board accepts no handouts. Unless someone is reading a letter and introduces it. Member Maybee asked if it would be possible to have a projector at the meeting so the Board could see some of these things. Interim Director Hauth stated yes now that staff knows the board expects PowerPoints. Chair George stated that historically, there was a PowerPoint for specific items. Member Lynch stated they want things on paper, but it is important that the public feels included, too. Member Maybee stated it includes the applicant, too. When the Board has text amendments, when the staff proposes a text amendment, can the proposed change be shown in a different color ink, so the Board knows what it is? Member Lynch requested that items have the date and the name of the person who wrote them. ADJOURNMENT Chair George called for a motion to adjourn, and Vice Chair Allen made a motion. Member Lynch seconded the motion. The Board voted, and it passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:06 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning