Loading...
12-11-25 Meeting Minutes PBPERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 December 12th, 2025, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member James, Member Lynch, Member Wagstaff, Member Lester, Member Allen Member Absent: Member Mcfarland Staff Present: Planning Director Nish Trivedi, Planner Jay Jennings, Michie Brandon Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Member George requested items C 6, 7 and 8 be continued to following week. Petition TA-15-25 – Amend the Variance standards to be in accordance with State Law NCGS 160D. Planning Director re-presented the item reiterating that the standards were not being changed, only simplified, consolidated, and in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. He explained the transparent public process used in arriving at the public hearing. Public hearing was conducted. No members of the public present. Member Allen moved to recommend BOC approve the item as discussed, seconded by Member James. The vote was 6-0. Petition TA-16-25 – Amend the Planning Ordinance to Delete Section 150-2-(2.) – waiting period for reapplications to be in accordance with State Law. Planning Director re- presented the item with the text clarification. He explained the transparent public process used in arriving at the public hearing. Public hearing was conducted. There were no members of the public present. Member Lynch moved to recommend BOC approve the item as discussed, seconded by Sherry Lester. The vote was 6-0. Petition TA-17-25 – Amend the Planning Ordinance Section 72 Landscaping and Buffers. Member Lynch expressed concern regarding the 420-foot contour line at Mayo Lake. The Planning Director explained that this contour is administered by the Lake Authority, which regulates activities occurring below that elevation. Member George expressed concerns regarding the requirement of buffers for all water bodies, noting that such requirements could create confusion when applied in conjunction with stormwater control measures (SCMs). She also questioned the County’s legal authority to enforce landscaping and buffer requirements within the Roanoke River watershed in light of the Hurricane Helene legislation. The Planning Director responded that water bodies are already regulated under the Planning Ordinance and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. He further explained the statutory authority of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), citing applicable state statutes that provide this authority, and noted that other counties are implementing comparable standards under existing state law, including in the context of Hurricane Helene. The proposed ordinance mirrors the standards adopted by neighboring counties and has been subject to similar legal review. Member Wagstaff raised concerns regarding the application of buffer and landscaping requirements to residential properties and the potential impact on developable area. The Planning Director clarified that the proposed amendment does not change residential standards or allowable developable area, but instead clarifies existing landscape and buffer provisions in the Planning Ordinance, with an emphasis on separation between properties. Member James voiced support for environmental protection, with particular emphasis on the preservation of rivers and streams. She stated that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which serves as the guiding policy framework for the Planning Board. She further reminded the Board that staff had been directed to prepare a Person County–specific ordinance and that this directive had been carried out. Member James noted that the amendment reflects local conditions and priorities rather than a generic or model approach. She also emphasized that aligning regulatory standards with adopted policy strengthens the County’s legal defensibility and provides clearer guidance for future development decisions. Member George requested that a statutory reference be added to the subsection identifying the 50-foot buffer requirement. The Planning Director explained that the buffer standard is derived from the Falls Nutrient Management Rules, which are administered by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pursuant to statutory authority and implemented through the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA). He further stated that the item would be brought back with additional documentation addressing the legal basis for the proposed text amendment, including the 50-foot best management practice standard and other scientific and statutory authorities authorizing North Carolina counties to adopt such requirements. Member George also expressed concern regarding the potential for litigation. The Planning Director responded that several comparable counties have adopted similar landscaping and buffer standards pursuant to recent state statutes and that, to date, none of those ordinances have been subject to legal challenge. He further stated that when the item is brought back for consideration, staff will include information on any instances in North Carolina where local landscaping or buffer requirements have been challenged through litigation. Member James reiterated concerns related to flood prevention and the protection of the northern portion of the county and expressed support for approving Item No. 2. She emphasized the importance of proactive measures to address flooding risks and safeguard natural resources in vulnerable areas. The Planning Director explained that southern Person County is already subject to more stringent environmental regulations reflected in the Planning Ordinance, largely due to existing watershed and floodplain requirements. He noted that staff is recommending comparable landscaping and buffer standards for other environmentally sensitive areas of the county where there is currently noprotection to County water supply, in order to provide a more consistent and equitable regulatory framework countywide. Member Allen suggested a buffer configuration consisting of a 25-foot managed buffer and a 25-foot unmanaged buffer. The Planning Director indicated that this recommendation would be included if the Planning Board chose to advance the amendment. Member Lynch requested clarification regarding the scientific basis for the 50-foot buffer requirement. The Planning Director explained that the standard is supported by DEQ and UNRBA modeling, research, and regulatory findings documented in published mate rials.This would be documented further in updated staff material being brought back before the Planning Board.Member George asked whether documented environmental issues exist at Hyco Lake and Mayo Lake. Staff Brandon stated that the lakes had been closed for swimming due to concerns related to geese populations contributing to algae blooms, salmonella, cryptosporidium, and increased phosphorus and nitrogen levels, and noted the role of trees in deterring geese. She also referenced the Roanoke River as a drinking water source for Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Smith Mountain Lake. Member George raised concerns regarding the potential for litigation associated with the Hurricane Helene relief legislation and asserted that the proposed landscaping and buffer requirements could reduce overall developable area. The Planning Director reminded Board members that these concerns had been addressed previously and reiterated that the item would be brought back with additional supporting information. Member George further stated that the requirements would not be economically favorable. In response, the Planning Director explained that real estate market research has consistently demonstrated that landscaping and buffer standards often contribute to increased property values by enhancing aesthetics and providing clear physical separation between properties. He noted that this information would be documented and presented when the item is returned to the Planning Board for further consideration. Member Lynch requested additional research specific to the Roanoke River. The Planning Director offered to return with additional information at a future meeting. Members Wagstaff and George opposed the amendment and made a motion to deny the text amendment. The motion resulted in a 3–3 tie vote. Member George stated a preference for a more cautious and thorough approach at the outset to avoid future regret. Members Lester and James emphasized the importance of being proactive in protecting the northern portion of the county as development occurs. Member George raised a concern for the economic impact of requiring a vegetative buffer with the current lot size it would make the lots unusable.The Planning Director clarified that the proposed standards do not affect lot size, permitted use, or allowable developable area and further elaborated that the proposed buffer and landscaping standards are intended to function as design and screening requirements rather than land dedication or setback reductions. He emphasized that these standards are typically accommodated within required yards or perimeter areas and therefore do not diminish the number of buildable lots or the intensity of permitted development. He also noted that the clarification of “opaque” landscaping is meant to provide objective, enforceable criteria—such as planting density and year-round visual screening—thereby reducing ambiguity for applicants and staff alike. By referencing Hillsborough’s ordinance, the Planning Director explained that the County is relying on an established and legally vetted framework that has proven effective in balancing development flexibility with compatibility between adjoining properties. Ranges were provided to allow applicant and staff to negotiate and continue fully developing their property. Members Lynch, Allen, and Lester expressed a desire for additional research and made a motion for approval with revisions. The motion resulted in a 3–3 tie vote. Petition TA-18-25 – Amend the Planning Ordinance by moving Appendix A (Interpretations of Terms and Definitions), Appendix B (Definitions), Appendix C (Permitted Use Table) and Subdivision Regulations into the Ordinance. Planning Director re-presented the item, illustrated the text clarification based on the table of contents and the public process used in arriving at the public hearing. The public hearing was conducted. There were no members of the public present. Robert Allen moved to recommend BOC approve the item as discussed, seconded by Zakiya James. The vote was 6-0.