Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-10-26 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 September 10, 2026 7:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER B. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM 1. Conflict of Interest C. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES 1. Minutes of Feb 12th, 2026, March 12th, 2026, and May 14th, 2026 D. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS F. HEARING ON CASES, IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED 1. Petition RZ-1-26 – Lauren Middleton petition to rezone; Tax Map 117 Parcel 1 1 from R to RC. i. Action: Public Hearing and recommendation to Board of Commissioners G. ADJOURNMENT PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 Febraury 12th, 2026, 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 pm. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member James, Member Wagstaff, Member Allen Member Absent: Member Lynch, Member Lester, 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 Chair George read the conflict of interest statement. No conflicts of interest were declared. Chair George stated due to improper notice that the Board would not be able to discuss the public hearing items. Staff stated that the public notice for the hearing was provided in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and noted that the ordinance language may warrant clarification. Staff explained that the notice was published for two successive calendar weeks within the required timeframe of not less than 10 days and not more than 25 days prior to the hearing date. Planning Director indicated he would look into the matter as to why it was not published consectively. Staff further referenced N.C.G.S. 160D-601(c), noting that local ordinances are required to adopt public notice procedures consistent with Chapter 160D-601. Staff also indicated that the meeting agenda, notice, and related materials had been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to the meeting. The Planning Director stated that he would review the current ordinance and other procedural regulations regarding notices and hearings in relation to applicable state statutes, and would bring any recommended clarifications back to the Board for consideration. Chair George the ordinance says two consecutive weeks and the county could be more restrictive. Chair George and Vice Chair Allen ruled that the hearing was out of order and decided not hold the public hearing for the items as publicly advertised, but could move to minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair George stated to add to the minutes that per NCGS and the planning ordinance that the Planning Board only had 30 days to make a decision and it was automatically passed to the Commsioners. Chair George stated that there was a inquiry that Planning staff would prepare the minutes from the previous TRC meeting and that did not make it into the January minutes but it did make it into the staff report and asked if it could be added to the minutes. Chair George stated to have the document in black and white to save on printing. Chair George opened the meeting for discussion of the December 11, 2025, and January 8, 2026 meeting minutes. During the review, corrections were identified related to attendance, clarification of votes, statutory references, typographical errors, and formatting. Chair George also requested that the Landscape and Buffer text amendment be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Director responded that the item had been withdrawn, noting that the Planning Board had previously requested that staff address certain concerns and return with revisions, but subsequently declined to review how those concerns had been addressed when the item was brought back. Chair George stated that the Planning Board had taken action on the item. The Planning Director reminded them that the item had been withdrawn and referenced the prior text amendment adopted by the Board of Commissioners authorizing withdrawal and reconsideration pursuant to state statute. He indicated that this clarification would be accurately reflected in the meeting minutes. Member Wagstaff moved to approve the minutes from 12/11/2025 as amended. Member James seconded a vote was made and it passed 4:0. Member Allen made a motion to approve the minutes from 1/8/2026 as amended. Member Wagstaff seconded. A vote was made and it passed 4:0. PLANNING BOARD TRAINING The Planning Director provided Planning Board training. ADJOURNMENT Member James motioned to adjourn and Member George seconded. The Board voted and it passed 4:0. The meeting adjourned at 7: 47 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair or Vice Chair ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning 1 PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 March 12th, 2026, 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 pm. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member Tanks, Member Wagstaff, Member Lynch, Member Lester, Member McFarland Member Absent: Member Allen Staff Present: Planning Director Nish Trivedi, Planner Jay Jennings, Michie Brandon Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS No member declared a conflict of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member George opened the portion of the meeting for approval of the February 12, 2026, meeting. Member George asked for actions and comments to be added to the minutes in the consolidation section, TRC section, and to review what was requested in the landscaping and buffer sections. Planning Director stated he would review those sections for accuracy. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Member George requested that unfinished business be changed to new business. The Planning Director stated he was following the approved rules and procedures and ensuring consistency with their outline. TA-4-26 – Planning Ordinance - Consolidation. The Planning Director gave the presentation for the text amendment for initial public discussion. Member Lester asked what the difference was between meetings and hearings. The Planning Director stated that all Planning Board meetings are public meetings where people are always invited to and encouraged to comment, not formal hearings. Planning Board does not make decisions, so no legislative hearings. Their meetings are not quasi-judicial, so no evidentiary hearing. The public can still attend meetings and comment at meetings, but the meetings are not considered public hearings for the Planning Board. 2 Planning Director provided examples of the very limited counties that allow hearings at the advisory board level, stated for clarification that Pender County does it for text amendments and map amendments. Member Wagstaff asked what we do it for. The Planning Director stated that Person County does it for text/map amendments, conditional rezonings, development agreements, and vested rights. Member George stated that text admendments are common and typically several items are all bundled into one newspaper ad. Planning Director reminded them that even bundled, the cost to the county is per letter per occurrence, not just the number of amendments. Member Lester stated that if we pass this, there will not be an ad in the paper. The Planning Director confirmed this, adding that all meetings are public, posted on the County's websites, calendar, and packets made available through them. Member George asked how the public will know. Planning Director reminded them of their approved calendar, County website, and packet publication. The planner stated the notice will still be placed in the newspaper for the Board of Commissioners public hearings. Member Lynch stated that right now, landowners within 500’ will get a letter, and a sign will be placed out on the property. Member Lynch stated that if I am reading this correctly, that goes away. The Planning Director stated no that the 500’ notice letter would stay, and the sign would stay because that is still required for all public hearings before the Board of Commissioners. Member George stated that under Planning Board rules and procedures, the notice that Member Lynch stated has been struck out. The Planning Director stated that, to be consistent with the planning ordinance, there are two separate sets of notice requirements that become repetitive and are similar enough that they only need to be stated once. The Planning Director stated that the second set of requirements for the mail notices would be kept for clarity. Member Lynch stated that as long as those two requirements stay it seemed like adequate notice for the affected property owners and interested property owners. Member Lynch requested that the staff look into other forms to let the public know. The Planning Director would follow up later on different means of public engagement. Member Lynch asked about the cost to the applicant. The Planning Director stated that the county pays the fee to advertise right now. Member George stated why has that not been incorporated into the application fee. The Planner stated the county has been paying all notice requirement fees and that it has never been incorporated into the fee schedule. Member Lynch stated that it should be looked into. Member George stated that she agreed with the applicant paying their own advertising, then decreasing the amount of public notice. The Planning Director stated this text amendment is decreasing expenses and especially costs to the public, because NCGS does not require advisory boards to conduct public hearings, only the Governing Board are required to do them. Member George stated that this is decreasing the number of ways for the public to know about this meeting. Planning Director clarified, this only removes the small, expensive legal ad in the 3 paper for planning board’s hearings, all planning board meetings are on the County’s website, calendar, and published packets continue to remain, as does the legal ad for the Commissioner’s public hearing. Member George stated this will also give individuals more time to gather information to provide for the Public hearing. The Planning Director reminded them that throughout the past several months, out of all the text and map amendments, the only Planning Board public hearing were public provided information was Hicks rezoning. Member Wagstaff stated that the public participated in the solar text amendment. The Planning Director stated that it was before he had started with the county. Member George stated that just because the public has not participated in 5 months does not mean that that was a good reason to decrease the avenue for public participation. Planning Director reminded them he would bring back an item on public participation and that they are also welcome to encourage the public to attend the Planning Board meetings. Member Tanks stated she agreed with the text edits and agreed with member Lynch on the 500’ notice and sign. Member Lynch asked if this was passed, how would things change for the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated the only change would be cutting our advertising expense in half, Planning Board meetings would continue, as would public comments. Member Lynch stated for clarification that public hearings are required of the Governing Board, which is the Board of Commsioners whereas, whereas the Planning Board is only required to hold a public meeting. Member McFarland stated he was in support of the text amendment and that it would not be economically friendly for development to require an applicant to pay the five hundred to six hundred advertising fee. Member Lynch stated that what other avenues, other than a newspaper ad, can we use to let the public know about meetings. The Planning Director stated that staff would do some research to bring back to the Planning Board next week. Member Lynch stated that offering an alternative would help support the decision to stop the Legal ad for the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated that staff would do some research to bring back to the Planning Board next week. Member Lester stated how does staffing affect the legal ad. The Planning Director stated that time goes into creating, proofreading, and sending the ad to the newspaper, and also making sure that what is sent is what is posted in the paper. The Planner stated that there would be less room for error by changing this process. Member George asked how much time the ad takes and whether the time can be broken out into the different steps of the ad process. The Planning Director stated he would bring back that information at the following meeting. Member Lester asked if the change would take effect immediately. The Planning Director stated it would not take effect until the commissioners approved it. 4 Member Wagstaff stated could we only do one ad. The Planner stated that it could be the Planning Board's recommendation, but it would still be at the county's cost. Member Wagstaff stated it may be suspicious to residents if we remove the notice. Planning Director reminded them that their meetings would still be public and comments would still be collected. Member George stated, especially with larger projects coming through. The Planning Director stated that most large projects are, by right, done administratively and do not require going before the Planning Board. Member George stated that any development requires a hearing. Planning Director reminded them that the Ordinance only requires hearings on text/map amendments, Conditional Districts, Development Agreements, and Vested Rights, not by-right. Special Use Permits are issued by the Governing Board. Member Tanks stated her support for the amendment, bringing the meetings into compliance, saving staff time, and saving the county money. Member Lynch stated that the first two 156-4 and 158-3 public notices require that the applicant is responsible for the letter and placing the sign. The Planner stated he would go back and check it. The text amendment will be brought before the Board for action in April. Public Hearing Petition TA-1-26 – Planning Ordinance - Consolidation. The Planning Director presented the presentation for all three text amendments. The Planner stated in terms of the consolidation that the County Attorney is requesting to match the state language regarding each of the individual articles and that we do not use cross-references. The Planner stated that the footnotes will be removed as well. Member George opened the portion of the meeting for discussion on TA-1-26 – Planning Ordinance – Consolidation. Member Lynch stated in the definitions, page 108, that a date that was revised needed to be added. Member George stated that the footnote on page 21 just states AR. The Planning Director reminded them all footnotes would be removed. Member George stated that it was not what we were given. The Planning Director stated that the County attorney’s recommendations were received yesterday, as presented on the slide. Member George stated that she had asked that the document be prepared and converted to black and white, but the pdf still remains in color. The Planning Director reminded them that they would not be able to distinguish new text from old and that the final document will be in black and white as it would only have the final approved text. Additionally, he would go back and check the footer. 5 Member George stated that on pages 127 and 137 it is a missing footer, and the rest of the document has a banner at the bottom. Member George stated in terms of consistency of formatting, she has some difficulties with this ordinance. Member McFarland stated that this seems to be a clerical error that was corrected later. The Planner stated he would correct them. Member Wagstaff stated it's just cosmetic changes. Member George stated that it needed to be brought up due to them not being updated. Similar to the discussions of the UDO changes that were requested, they would never be added. Member George stated that was where she was coming from. Member Wagstaff stated that the cometic changes are not the ordinance, and Member McFarland agreed as long as the content shows the changes. Member McFarland made a motion, and Member Tanks seconded, and it passed 5:1 Member Lynch stated that she would like to do this in a way as clear as possible and be considerate of the budget, and Member George agreed. Member Tanks stated its confusing when we talk about being finance-friendly when we were just talking about saving money from not advertising, and we could not make a decision. Member George stated that the color for the document was not a value-added thing, whereas the ad does add value. Member McFarland stated this should not be something that we can control. If someone at work prints it in color, they print it in color. Public Hearing Petition TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance - Technical/Development Review Committee The Planning Director represented the section of the presentation for this article. Member Wagstaff stated that requiring another committee to involve all departments was cumbersome. The Planning Director stated that all departments would be invited, but their attendance is not mandatory; each department would determine how involved they want to be and could appoint anyone on their staff to represent their department. If they had no comment, all they would have to do is say no comment. Member Wagstaff stated that it states they shall respond and they shall attend monthly. Staff Brandon stated that regardless of the TRC, the individual would still be required to get that approval. It is simply a way to navigate applicants clearly from point A to point B. Member Wagstaff asked why Parks and Rec would be involved, and it was an overstep into other departments. The Planning Director reminded them that certain projects would have open space amenities, and their input would be valuable. Additionally, just as we invite everyone in the public, whether the material in the packet affects them or not, this extends that practice to all departments, whether they have comments on it or not. 6 Member Lynch stated that there are no departments listed that would never need to be involved in this type of meeting. The Planning Director stated that what is listed is based on my professional experiences from other areas in different states I have worked with based on potential applications, especially when not knowing what an applicant may submit. Certain departments, like Human Resources and Finance, are not listed because they would not have any comments. Member Lynch stated all of these could potentially be involved in a particular project. The Planner stated that, like every public citizen, they would be kept in the loop about what is going on. Member Lynch stated that it keeps you out of situations where the applicant has to bounce around departments, or you can get all departments on the same page at the same time. Staff Brandon stated that it is our job to do this, which also adds an additional standard for everyone to act ethically and not require for one individual and not the other. Member George stated has been a problem in the past with other departments. Staff Brandon stated our jobs is to act fair and equitable to everyone, and it just adds that additional standard to be fair and equitable to everyone. The Planning Director stated we already have proven examples of TRC Meetings like 3 schools in one meeting, and we have applicants requesting them, like Duke. Member Wagstaff stated why do these meeting have to be written in law to be completed. The Planning Director stated that if it is not codified, it is not practiced or offered. Writing it into the ordinance clarifies to everyone what it is, how it is done, and describes the expedited and efficient process. Without it, applicants continue to bounce around different departments at different stages, getting different information rather than all being on the same page. Member George stated that what she is hearing is that departments are doing different things for different applicants. Planning Director stated he has no jurisdiction over what other departments do. Member George asked if the Planning department will be the judge of what is done. The Planning Director stated the department is simply coordinating a meeting, and every department is in the know of what is going on. Staff Brandon stated with as many applications as we are having come through to keep up with permits in a timely manner. This will be effective instead of getting caught up on issues where applicants get tripped up due to not having a process lined out. Member George asked if staff had checked with stakeholders. Planning Director reminded them of the extensive public process resulting in the text amendment, including the two workshops with all the departments, the multiple successful pilot projects involving schools, Bardominium, glamping, Duke’s request, and the potential benefit to Microsoft. Member Lynch asked about the Bardominium meeting. The Planner stated it was a developer seeking multiple different uses on a large property, including glamping, resort, gym, and we covered it all with multiple departments in one meeting. They have not submitted a formal application yet. 7 Member George stated that contractors routinely pull permits. Planning Director reminded them that each project requires different permits from our and other departments. This process brings all these different permits together into one meeting so applicants can get all their questions answered at the same time for all their permits. Member Lynch asked if this is a process that shall happen or may happen. Staff Brandon stated that each situation is different based on minute details when it comes to planning and zoning, and has to be weighed out. You may have someone who wants to build a bardominium but also wants to do the glamping use. Each one requires different permits. You may just have someone who wants to build a house. That can be processed administratively. It gives staff and applicant consistency in the permits, and the complixity of the project determines the need for different permits. Member McFarland stated to change shall to may. Member Wagstaff stated, if you change shall to may, what is the point of codifying it. Why not offer it without codifying it. The Planning Director reminded them that if it is not codified, it is not offered. This amendment expedites the development review process in a single setting. Without it, the development process will remain as is, with the applicant bouncing around different departments. Member George stated what cost would you anticipate to be associated, and what do you anticipate the dollar value to be. The Planning Director stated it would not cost applicants anything, as this improves staff and multi-department work efficiency. Staff could look into a fee schedule for this if the Planning Board makes that part of their recommendation. Member Lester stated that it was her belief that the TRC was an internal committee that would come in with the applicant and discuss their concerns openly and what they need to do, versus now they go to each individual department. The Planning Director stated yes. Member Lynch stated, are there extra costs associated with the meeting. Member Lynch stated that if it does, then the board would have to look at that. Member Lynch stated she would hope that it would be a more efficient process. Planning Director reminded them that the current amendment does not recommend any fees to the applicant. Member George stated why would we charge the applicant for a more efficient process. The Planning Director stated that staff would need the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve this process so it can be codified. The fee would be a separate research, should you recommend a fee. Member George stated is there anything disallowing applicants to meet with multiple departments currently. Planning Director reminded them that applicants are welcome to continue the longer process of bouncing around different departments if they choose to for administrative by-right processes. This process would not stop them from doing that; we are simply trying to help both applicant and staff better manage their limited resources through this efficient process. Member Lester stated it would also help with the he-said-she-said. Member George stated that there had been no public comments on any items. The Planning Director reminded them that this has been publicly discussed since November, and no comments have been received. We conducted workshops with all departments, earning their support along 8 with a few pilot projects, earning support of developers like schools, Duke, and bringing potential benefit to others. Calvin Clayton, 45 Abbitt St., Roxboro, NC. Stated that he was the oldest developed builder in Person County for 42 years, and I am also here representing the home builder association in approval of this action. I have bounced around in those offices myself day after day after day and when you get approval from one, you do not the other. When one gets your information, the other does not. I have made 9 different trips for one application. Whether it is mandated or not, or if I had to pay, this comes from the homebuilders association and other builders in this county, for all the departments to hear my information at one time, we approve. So be it, pass the fee, and we are ready to pay it. Member Lynch and Member George stated that it answered there question. Member Lynch asked when an application comes in, do they all go through this process, or do some go through and some do not. The Planning Director stated that we will create an agenda on which applications may need to have a TRC, the ones that the applicants want a TRC, and present them and compile comments. Staff would hold more meetings as necessary. Member Lester stated that the DRC and TRC are the same thing. The Planning Director stated that the Planning Board would need to pick a name. Member George stated that, looking at the yearly graph, it looks like business permits have been decreasing since 2023. Staff Brandon stated that there has been an uptick this year. Planning Director added that staff have helped applicants submit accurate information in their applications, as presented with Misc being updated to actual commercial. Member George stated that on page 7, applicability to give clarity to who it is we could change shall to a may, and add “or that requests such a review.” This would address concerns of forcing a review, and also people who would want to request a review. The Planning Director stated that all the applications, reminding them of the list previously shown, and their was no intent to list all of them in the text amendment. Member George stated to strike number 5 the follow-up because that will keep from having a delay. Member Wagstaff stated it should be service offered to anyone, but writing it in the ordinance is unnecessary. Member Lynch stated that somewhere there needs to be a procedure. Planning Director reminded them that if it is not codified, it is not done. Current pilot projects are evidence of their success. Member McFarland stated that, in his experience, this process is valuable to support the idea that this is what is currently done in the construction field. Member Tanks stated that it offers staff flexibility to say who it is applicable to and not based on how it is written. Member Tanks stated her support for how it was written and the efficiency of the process. Member McFarland stated his support and stated that it stops people from answer shopping. Member Lester stated that it adds that ethical standard, and there cannot be any private negotiations what is addressed in the meeting. The Planning Director stated that if the text amendment is not codified, we are not offering it freely because it is not requires and creates additional work that is not required. McFarland stated that you will have good and bad contractors, and making them go through this project will place them on the right path and take accountability upfront. Member Tanks stated it takes a lot of 9 contractor time and staff time with bounceing back and forth. Member Tanks stated we need to trust staff, and it will be helpful to the economic growth of the county. Member George stated that she would prefer the need to change it to allow contractors to request such a process. Member George stated it is not one of the examples given, and as it is written, those would not be volunteered for due to extra effort being required. Member George stated to add that request such a review. Planning Director reminded them of the successful pilot projects, the two workshops with all departments supporting the improved process, and that no additional efforts were created through this expedited and efficient development review process. Member Lynch stated are we also changing shall to may. Member George stated that support of changing shall to may. Member Lynch stated it’s a shall, but in the judgment of the planning Director and stated, the board should discuss it. Member Tanks and McFarland stated to leave it as shall. Member Lynch made a motion. Member Tanks Seconded, a vote was made, and it passed 5:1. Member Wagstaff stated he was opposed due to the process not needing to be codified, and staff should offer it regardless. Public Hearing Petition TA 3-26 – Planning Ordinance - Special Use Permit Standards The Planning Director represented the presentation for the item. Member George stated on page three, attachment 1, paragraph 3, that it mentions properties in watershed areas shall be subject to more stringent performance standards. Is this in addition to the existing regulations, or just the existing regulations. The Planning Director reminded them of Falls Rules, stating that it is just the existing rules and rules that the watershed ordinance requires. Member Lynch stated that section 155 was added for legal reasons. The Planning Director stated they are in section 160D, and they were added to bring it in line with 160D. Member George stated where the language came from on page 6 for environmental protection. The Planning Director stated it either came from the comprehensive plan or the environmental protection regulation found in the EPA. The Director stated he would add the citation when it came before the Board of Commissioners, along with other citations as necessary. Member George stated that any habitat could be disturbed by any activity. Planning Director reminded them that habitats are state and federally regulated, and they can be regulated locally through wildlife planning. Member George stated that it does not specify endangered species, and it does not look to limit it in any way. Planning Director stated he would add a state or federal definition of wildlife habitat into the text amendment. Member George stated that it could have an adverse impact if it were to include any habitat, such as an ant hill. Planning Director will update the staff and supplemental report to address local, state, and federal practices on wildlife habitat protection. Member George stated that traffic is also too broad a term and could be adverse. Member Wagstaff stated that the term is so broad that it could go in as a supplement instead of a regulation. The Planning Director reminded them that all development generates increased traffic, traffic is scientifically regulated by NCDOT, ASHTO, and others, and reminded them 10 that most ordinances incorporate a separate traffic impact analysis requirement, but our ordinance currently does not, and this is one way of addressing the impact development has on local traffic. Member Wagstaff stated that the commissioners or whoever requested it should be aware that these items can be required, but writing them in the ordinance seems unnecessary. Planning Director reminded them that by codifying it, it helps the Board of Commissioners with their decisions, making it legally defensible. Staff and Supplemental reports will be updated to address this as well. Member Lynch stated that this would apply to special use permits, and the board may want to be careful with it, considering it is different than what usually comes through to the Planning Board and may have special concerns with the special use request. Planning Director reminded them that Special Use Permits do not go before the Planning Board; they go to the Board of Commissioners. Member Wagstaff stated these tools are already at their disposal. The Planning Director reminded them that right now, there is no legal basis for such a request, as it does not hold the same weight without writing it in the ordinance. Additionally, codifying it gives the Commissioners the leverage to request it; without it, it would only be a personal opinion-based request, not a legal one. Member George stated that, as it is written in 155-4, it states that it is a finding of fact required for approval. The Planning Director reminded them that Findings of Fact only apply to quasi- judicial actions at the Board of Adjustments, not the Planning Board. Member George stated that it would bind them instead of giving them. Member Lynch stated that it is binding the Commissioners to find that fact to approve that development. Planning Director clarified that these standards simply give Commissioners the legal means to request that such issues be incorporated into any Finding of Fact. Staff Brandon stated are you asking if it can be waived if they choose to. Planning Director added that all conditions must be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the decision board. Member George stated somewhat because it is being required of the Commissioners to approve the project. Planning Director reminded them that this does not require the Commissioners to do anything, only giving them legally defensible authority to make certain requests of the applicants. Member George stated that the terms used are too broad and somethings habitat is going to be disturbed. Planning Director reminded them that this would be addressed with state and federal definitions on habitat. Staff Brandon stated that it also takes out the liability that they are picking and choosing who to place requirements on and who not. Member Lynch stated that it does state significantly that does limit traffic. Member Lynch stated that he agreed that environmental habitat disturbance was too broad. The Planning Director stated he would provide a citation and clarification on what legally represents a habitat and traffic. Member Lynch stated that significant could potentially cover it. Member George stated that it also lists categories, and it can be misinterpreted as anything in this category is significant. The Planning Director stated there is a legal state and federal definition of what is regulatory, considering habitats, and that he would provide a definition and would check with the County Parks and Recreation Department on any of their regulations for the updated staff and supplemental reports. 11 Member Lynch asked if the Planning Director could make a suggestion to tighten the habitat and not make it so open. The Director stated that he would include a legal definition and regulations that regulate habitats. Member Lynch stated that habitat is defined by the various state or local agencies. Member George stated to be certain she did not want to wait for the definition. The Planner stated that the board could continue this item to the next meeting. Member George stated not according to NCGS. Member George stated that the ordinance states that after 30 days, our recommendations should go to the Commissioners. The Planning Director reminded them how the Board of Commissioners conducts public hearings, opening them and continuing them to a date certain. Member Wagstaff agreed with Member George. Member Lynch stated the commissioners could define it better than the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated he would include the citation and definitions when it went to the Commissioners. Member George stated that another option would be to change it to an endangered species. Member Wagstaff stated that those usually have state and federal laws. Staff Brandon stated would you want to add federal to what lynch stated to add. Member George agreed and suggested adding endangered or vulnerable species. Member Lynch made a motion. Member Lester seconded. A vote was made and passed 4:2. Member Wagstaff stated some items presented did not need to be codified. Member Tanks stated she was in support of the original amendments and adding the citations for the legal definition. HEARING ON CASES, IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED ADJOURNMENT Member McFarland motioned to adjourn and Member Wagstaff seconded. The Board voted and it passed 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair or Vice Chair ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning 1 PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 May 14th, 2026, 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 pm. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member Wagstaff, Member Lynch, Member Lester Member Absent: Member Allen, Member Tanks, 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 No member declared a conflict of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member George opened the portion of the meeting for approval of the March 17th , 2026 minutes. Member Lynch made a motion to table the minutes due to corrections. Member Lester seconded. A vote was made and passed 4:0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance – Amend Article XIV Subdivision Regulations and Article XV – Development Application Review Procedures Member George opened the floor for discussion on TA-02-2026. Staff member Brandon delivered the presentation and invited questions from the Board. Member Lynch asked why the amendment was labeled TA-02-2026 when the Board had previously reviewed an amendment under the same designation. The Planning Director explained that several text amendments had been withdrawn and the numbering was consolidated for filing purposes. Member Lynch stated that the language proposed to be added for Section 14 for subdivision regulations the language was already in the document except the part that states Such certified plats will be exempt from the Person County Private Road Standards. Member Lynch noted that the proposed language for Section 14 of the subdivision regulations already existed in the ordinance, with the exception of the statement: “Such certified plats will be 2 exempt from the Person County Private Road Standards.” Member Wagstaff clarified that the amendment’s primary purpose was to add the exemption language, and Member Lynch agreed Member Lynch stated that she understood the amendment was intended to prevent unnecessary text amendments from being reviewed by the Planning Board after previously being rejected by the Board of Commissioners. She further expressed concern that, during the tenure of the Interim Director, interpretation issues had arisen that required clarification. Member Lynch stated that such matters are more appropriately reviewed by the Planning Board due to its specialized land- use expertise, whereas the Board of Commissioners oversees a broader range of issues. She added that while the current Commissioners are knowledgeable about land use matters, future Boards may not maintain the same level of focus, potentially resulting in important amendments being overlooked. Member Wagstaff asked whether the amendment could be divided into two separate sections, and the Board agreed. Member George proposed adding the following language: “The Planning Board shall have 30 days within which to submit its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. If no written report is received from the Planning Board within thirty days, the Board of Commissioners may proceed in its consideration of the amendment without the Planning Board report. The Board of Commissioners is not bound by the recommendation, if any, of the Planning Board.” Member Lynch stated that, if she recalled correctly, the process would involve introduction of the item, followed by a public hearing before the Planning Board, and then consideration by the Commissioners. Staff member Brandon clarified that the amendment would first go before the Commissioners for approval to proceed to the Planning Board, after which it would return to the Commissioners for the public hearing process. Staff member Brandon stated that the language could be added if desired; however, Member George noted that the Board wished to separate the two sections for discussion at a later time. Member Wagstaff made a motion to recommend the changes to Section 141-1, including the addition of subsection 7 and the language stating, “Such certified plats will be exempt from the Person County Private Road Standards.” Member Lester seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Member Wagstaff then asked whether staff suggestions could still be brought before the Board of Commissioners, with the Commissioners subsequently initiating the amendment process before the Planning Board or declining to proceed. The Planning Director confirmed that the Commissioners would need to formally initiate the amendment by approving the request. Member Wagstaff further asked whether, if staff approached him with a suggestion, he as a Planning Board member could initiate the request. Member George responded that the Planning Board would first need to concur. He added that the primary procedural change would be that 3 amendments would no longer be initiated directly by staff or proceed through the full review process without some level of support from the Commissioners. Member Lynch expressed concern that future Boards of Commissioners may not fully understand certain land-use matters, thereby limiting staff’s ability to initiate amendments required by changes in statute. Staff member Brandon agreed, noting that future statutory changes could restrict staff’s ability to recommend necessary ordinance updates. Member George responded that if the Board became aware of statutory changes, the Planning Board could still recommend updates necessary to remain consistent with North Carolina General Statutes. Member Lynch further stated that situations may arise that are not currently addressed within the County’s ordinance, particularly issues unfamiliar to the Board but observed by staff in the office. The Planner acknowledged that this concern related to enabling legislation and agreed with her assessment. Commissioner Sherry Wilborn stated that communication between staff, the Planning Board, and the Commissioners should not be viewed as divided by unnecessary barriers. She explained that if an issue arose, staff could simply communicate the concern to the Commissioners to determine how they wished to proceed. Commissioner Wilborn emphasized that the intent of the amendment was to respect staff time, volunteer board time, and taxpayer resources by avoiding repeated meetings and extended deliberations on matters that a majority of Commissioners had already indicated they did not support. She further noted that if a legitimate need for change arose, the matter could still be brought forward through the County Manager. Commissioner Wilborn concluded by stating that future Boards of Commissioners would retain the authority to amend the ordinance if desired, and that the current amendment was not intended to prevent necessary changes from being considered. Member Wagstaff then made a motion to accept the changes as presented in the meeting packet. Member Lester seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-1. HEARING ON CASES, IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED ADJOURNMENT Member Wagstaff motioned to adjourn and Member Lynch seconded. The Board voted and it passed 4:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:36 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair or Vice Chair ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 1 | P a g e Person County Planning Department APPLICANT LAUREN MIDDLETON PROPERTY OWNER LAUREN MIDDLETON REQUEST REZONE PROPERTY ON EAST SIDE OF BURLINGTON ROAD, NC 49 S, (TAX MAP 117, PARCEL 1 1) FROM RESIDENTIAL (R) TO RURAL CONSERVATION (RC) LOCATION 889 BURLINGTON ROAD ROXBORO TOWNSHIP BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The County has received an application from Lauren Middleton to amend the official zoning map. The request is to rezone a 0.54-acre parcel located on Burlington Road NC 49 S from Residential to Rural Conservation. If rezoned, all land uses permitted in the RC District will be allowed. The general intent of the RC, Rural Conservation District, shall be to provide for only limited land use controls in areas with limited nonagricultural development. The area along Burlington Road is primarily zoned Residential but there are some B-1 properties. There are two parcels that are zoned B-1 (Highway Commercial, one is the National Guard Armory, and the other parcel is vacant. Immediately adjacent to the parcel on Burlington Road there is a mixture of vacant land and single-family dwellings. The property adjoining the site is the Pine Lakes Subdivision. North along Burlington Road is Rolling Hills Garden Center & Village Gallery Florist, Fabulous Feet Dance Academy and Mad Hair Design. These properties have been annexed by the City of Roxboro and are zoned B-1. Attached to this report is a map showing the area and zoning of adjacent parcels. The Person County Land Use Plan’s “Future Land Use Map” shows this area as Residential Neighborhood surrounded by Growth Areas. Desired Characteristics of Residential Neighborhoods include: • Building Height: 1 – 2 Stories REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 2 | P a g e • Residential Density: Low – Medium • Primary Uses: Single Family Homes • Secondary Uses: Supporting Services Desired Characteristics of Growth Areas include: • Building Height: 1 – 2 Stories • Residential Density: Medium, Predominantly Single Family • Primary Uses: Residential • Secondary Uses: Supporting Commercial Uses Land uses within this category could develop with or without public sewer. Section 15.4-4(2) of the Planning Ordinance states: “The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that addresses whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the Board of County Commissioners shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and why such action is reasonable and in the public interest. The Land Use Plan has Goals and Objectives for future land development within the County. The following item is listed within this section: Guiding Principle 1 Objective: Implement growth management policies that direct development to growth areas, helping preserve prime agricultural and sensitive natural areas. Guiding Principle 2 Objective: Designate sufficient developable land and sites to support economic growth. This parcel consists of 0.54 acres. There is City water available on Burlington Road and septic is on site. Access to the site is from Burlington Road NC 49 S. If the property is rezoned to Rural Conservation, the following uses would be permitted by right: retail sales, banks, bowling alley, car wash, convenience store, single family REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 3 | P a g e dwelling, fire station/law enforcement center, funeral home, nursery (plants), office and personal office, reception center for recycling, storage, household and commercial, etc. The Rural Conservation district allows other uses with a Special Use Permit such as automobile repair, hospital, mobile home park, private recreation for profit, planned building group, etc. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed: Located in the Flat River Watershed Protection Overlay District and the Neuse/Falls Watershed Basin and is subject to the Falls Watershed Stormwater Ordinance. Flood Hazard: The subject property is listed in Zone X, Minimal Flood Risk per Map 3710999500J, dated June 4, 2007. The property adjoins the largest lake in Pine Lakes. CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA The property is located on Burlington Road, NC 49 South. There is a mixture of uses within the area. Along NC 49, there is vacant land, single family dwellings, a garden supply/florist, National Guard Armory, dance studio, and hair salon. TRAFFIC COUNTS Per the 2024 NCDOT Traffic Count Map: 5100 ADT ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 15.4-1 Initiation of Amendment The Board of Commissioners may, at any time, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the boundaries or regulations in this Ordinance, or subsequently amended. Proposed changes or amendments may only be initiated by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, or by one or more owners, optionees or lessees of property within the area proposed to be changed or affected. This may be done in accordance with the provisions of this section. 15.4-2 Submission of Petitions Petitions to amend this Ordinance or the zoning map shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review according to the adopted Planning Board and Board of Commissioners yearly schedule. The petition shall include the following: 1. A completed Application for Map Amendment or Application for Text Amendment. REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 4 | P a g e 2. For Amendments to the Official Planning Map, a map drawn to scale showing the exterior boundaries of the lot(s) which will be covered by the proposed map amendment; 3. For amendments to the Planning Ordinance text, a copy of the existing text provisions which the applicant proposes for amendment, and a written statement which describes in detail changes the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Ordinance. 4. The alleged error in the Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance Text which will be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the same; 5. The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare; 6. The manner in which the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and, 7. All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment. (Amended 8/5/96) Each petition, unless initiated by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, or Board of Adjustment, shall be accompanied by a fee to defray the cost of advertising and other administrative costs involved. 15.4-3 Planning Board Review and Recommendation After submission of a completed application, the Zoning Administrator will schedule a public hearing for the Planning Board in accordance with the published Planning Board meeting schedule on file in the Planning and Zoning Department. A notice of such public hearing shall be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Person County. Said notice shall be published the first time not less than ten (10) days and not more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the date established for such public hearing. (Amended 11/5/01; 7/22/02; 3/13/2006). For map amendments, the Zoning Administrator will be responsible for mailing written notices to all property owners within 500’ of the property including the applicant and properties separated from the subject property by street, railroad, and other transportation corridor (N.C.G.S. 160D-602). The Zoning Administrator shall post notice on the land subject to the application within the same time period specified for mailed notice of the hearing using weatherproof signs, one sign per road frontage and posted no more than REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 5 | P a g e 25’ from the street right-of-way (NCGS 160D-602) (Amended 8/4/25). Signs must be clearly visible from the street and designate “Zoning Proposal Pending” with the phone number of the Planning and Zoning Department. When multiple parcels are included, a posting on each individual parcel is not required, but there should be reasonable notice provided to interested persons. 1. When conducting a review of proposed zoning text or map amendments pursuant to this section, the Planning Board shall advise and comment on whether the proposed action is consistent with the County’s comprehensive plan that has been adopted. The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that addresses plan consistency and other matters as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the Board of Commissioners (N.C.G.S. 160D-604 (d)). 2. When reviewing any zoning text or map amendment, the Planning Board shall approve a brief statement describing whether its action is consistent or inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and a brief statement of reasonableness. The statement of reasonableness and plan consistency required in this section may be approved as a single statement. Board members may adopt this statement when acting upon the zoning text or map amendment or as a separate motion (N.C.G.S. 160D-605). 15.4-4 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing 1. The Zoning Administrator will schedule a public hearing for the Board of Commissioners in accordance with that year's adopted schedule. A notice of such public hearing shall be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Person County. Said notice shall be published the first time not less than ten (10) days and not more than twenty- five (25) days prior to the date established for such public hearing. (Amended 7/22/02). 2. The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that addresses whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the Board of Commissioners. Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the Board of Commissioners shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and why such action is reasonable and in the public interest. (Added 3/13/2006) REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 6 | P a g e 3. The Planning Board shall have 30 days within which to submit its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. If no written report is received from the Planning Board within thirty days, the Board of Commissioners may proceed in its consideration of the amendment without the Planning Board report. The Board of Commissioners is not bound by the recommendation, if any, of the Planning Board. (Amended 7/22/02; 3/13/2006) 4. When adopting or rejecting any zoning text or map amendment, the Board of Commissioners shall approve a brief statement describing whether its action is consistent or inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and a brief statement of reasonableness. The statement of reasonableness and plan consistency required in this section may be approved as a single statement. Board members may adopt this statement when acting upon the zoning text or map amendment or as a separate motion (N.C.G.S. 160D-605). 5. A simple majority vote of the Board of Commissioners shall be the required minimum to amend this ordinance when recommendation from the Planning Board is received. STAFF COMMENTS This is a request to rezone 0.54 acres from R (Residential) to RC (Rural Conservation). Attached to this report is an article on Spot Zoning from the Institute of Government, and a map showing the property in question and surrounding properties. The properties immediately adjacent are primarily zoned Residential but the property north of Pine Lakes is zoned B1 (Highway Business). There are four factors in determining a reasonable basis for spot zoning. They are as follows: 1. Size of tract. The general rule is the smaller the tract, the more likely the rezoning will be held invalid. 2. Compatibility with Plan. Need to see if the rezoning fits into a larger context involving rational planning for the community. 3. Benefits and Detriments. Who benefits and who is harmed from the rezoning. Need to look at the property owner and the neighbors. 4. Relationship of Uses. Need to look at the relationship between the proposed uses and the current uses of adjacent properties. The Planning Board has the following options in a recommendation to the County Commissioners: 1. Approve the rezoning request as submitted. REZONING REQUEST RZ-01-26 / SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 7 | P a g e 2. Deny the rezoning request. The Board needs to address the compatibility with the Comprehensive plan in making their recommendation. Based on the above, the Planning & Zoning Department staff recommends that the Planning Board approve or deny Rezoning Petition RZ-01-26 for Lauren Middleton with the recommended motions below: 1. A motion to approve could be worded as follows: “I hereby move to recommend approval of Lauren Middleton’s request to rezone TM 117-1-1 from R to RC and find it consistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically, Guiding Principle 1.1: Implement policies that direct development to growth areas and 2.1: Designate sites to support economic growth.” 2. A motion to approve could be worded as follows: “I hereby move to recommend denial of Lauren Middleton’s request to rezone TM 117-1-1 from R to RC and find it inconsistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically, Guiding Principle 1.1: Implement policies that direct development to growth areas and 2.1: Designate sites to support economic growth.” Planning Board SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 Outline RZ-1-26 APPLICANT LAUREN MIDDLETON PROPERTY OWNER LAUREN MIDDLETON REQUEST REZONE PROPERTY ON EAST SIDE OF BURLINGTON ROAD, NC 49 S, (TAX MAP 117, PARCEL 1 1) FROM RESIDENTIAL (R) TO RURAL CONSERVATION (RC) LOCATION 889 BURLINGTON ROAD ROXBORO TOWNSHIP RZ-1-26 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The County has received an application from Lauren Middleton to amend the official zoning map. The request is to rezone a 0.54-acre parcel located on Burlington Road NC 49 S from Residential to Rural Conservation. If rezoned, all land uses permitted in the RC District will be allowed. The general intent of the RC, Rural Conservation District, shall be to provide for only limited land use controls in areas with limited nonagricultural development. The area along Burlington Road is primarily zoned Residential but there are some B-1 properties. There are two parcels that are zoned B-1 (Highway Commercial, one is the National Guard Armory, and the other parcel is vacant. Immediately adjacent to the parcel on Burlington Road there is a mixture of vacant land and single-family dwellings. The property adjoining the site is the Pine Lakes Subdivision. North along Burlington Road is Rolling Hills Garden Center & Village Gallery Florist, Fabulous Feet Dance Academy and Mad Hair Design. These properties have been annexed by the City of Roxboro and are zoned B-1. RZ-1-26 Recorded Plat RZ-1-26 The Person County Land Use Plan’s “Future Land Use Map” shows this area as Residential Neighborhood surrounded by Growth Areas. Desired Characteristics of Residential Neighborhoods include: •Building Height: 1 – 2 Stories •Residential Density: Low – Medium •Primary Uses: Single Family Homes •Secondary Uses: Supporting Services Desired Characteristics of Growth Areas include: •Building Height: 1 – 2 Stories •Residential Density: Medium, Predominantly Single Family •Primary Uses: Residential •Secondary Uses: Supporting Commercial Uses Land uses within this category could develop with or without public sewer. RZ-1-26 – General Map RZ-1-26 – Future Land Use Map RZ-1-26 – Current Zoning Map RZ-1-26 RZ-1-26 The Land Use Plan has Goals and Objectives for future land development within the County. The following item is listed within this section: Guiding Principle 1 Objective: Implement growth management policies that direct development to growth areas, helping preserve prime agricultural and sensitive natural areas. Guiding Principle 2 Objective: Designate sufficient developable land and sites to support economic growth. This parcel consists of 0.54 acres. There is City water available on Burlington Road and septic is on site. Access to the site is from Burlington Road NC 49 S. RZ-1-26 If the property is rezoned to Rural Conservation, the following uses would be permitted by right: retail sales, banks, bowling alley, car wash, convenience store, single family dwelling, fire station/law enforcement center, funeral home, nursery (plants), office and personal office, reception center for recycling, storage, household and commercial, etc. The Rural Conservation district allows other uses with a Special Use Permit such as automobile repair, hospital, mobile home park, private recreation for profit, planned building group, etc. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed: Located in the Flat River Watershed Protection Overlay District and the Neuse/Falls Watershed Basin and is subject to the Falls Watershed Stormwater Ordinance. Flood Hazard: The subject property is listed in Zone X, Minimal Flood Risk per Map 3710999500J, dated June 4, 2007. The property adjoins the largest lake in Pine Lakes. RZ-1-26 CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA The property is located on Burlington Road, NC 49 South. There is a mixture of uses within the area. Along NC 49, there is vacant land, single family dwellings, a garden supply/florist, National Guard Armory, dance studio, and hair salon. TRAFFIC COUNTS Per the 2024 NCDOT Traffic Count Map: 5100 ADT RZ-1-26 – Recommended motions Based on the above, the Planning & Zoning Department staff recommends that the Planning Board approve or deny Rezoning Petition RZ-01-26 for Lauren Middleton with the recommended motions below: 1.A motion to approve could be worded as follows: “I hereby move to recommend approval of Lauren Middleton’s request to rezone TM 117-1-1 from R to RC and find it consistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically, Guiding Principle 1.1: Implement policies that direct development to growth areas and 2.1: Designate sites to support economic growth.” 2. A motion to approve could be worded as follows: “I hereby move to recommend denial of Lauren Middleton’s request to rezone TM 117-1-1 from R to RC and find it inconsistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically, Guiding Principle 1.1: Implement policies that direct development to growth areas and 2.1: Designate sites to support economic growth.” RZ-1-26 – Questions?