[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6362486,"mediaKeyId","2167778-f2f27ac5162a8c04674b5234aeb7b56c","parentId",2167778,"title","Planning board backs mini‑storage rezoning near New Salem Road; conditions include screening and five‑year vesting","audioSeconds",478,"startMs",7525000,"endMs",8003000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167778-f2f27ac5162a8c04674b5234aeb7b56c&start=7525&end=8003","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167778-f2f27ac5162a8c04674b5234aeb7b56c/thumbnail_7525000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6362486/Union-County/North-Carolina/Planning-board-backs-ministorage-rezoning-near-New-Salem-Road-conditions-include-screening-and-fiveyear-vesting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362486-e0e7c84d61158259045135e628f66110/orig.mp4?Expires=1777189185&Signature=KBagDwvZ6jjV3qcZkMAQ0-Ct9pZNnGXl0nNL5YL6rK8-tXq9kIaazH-UGgJz7RsrGjGSEmLf8EZuwHDLTtuPu~kXNKb-MlSz3IOrSP0h2W39Q6PqfG9tcV8ps7c7sXHc9FtqUX1oS-EX5nEw7a0-2xu2mlnL4Do5nOFNNMGcb9p68TKJiRUGRFM9IiqB-PcAM-ZaEfu~2j7Hb4ydBcbGZuIO-ytTRc6gMuDqdT4hhZK567fJ7N7dzXUNeiZCHW1ZJijfLDq5RNqnAPT~bkQ~Vx-XVImjMWSUd7A6FmJFZ96Pr6cZeWT6YDUssK8t2NWH~rr8EhPBn5Gxe8VJwCFaDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Union County, NC","date","2025-01-29T13:29:46Z","article","The Union County Planning Board recommended approval Tuesday of a conditional rezoning to allow a light‑industrial mini‑storage facility on roughly 2.5 acres along New Salem Road, after the applicant described site layout and staff outlined conditions intended to limit impacts on neighboring residential parcels.

Staff described the site as constrained by overhead transmission lines and by frontage on two roads, and noted two existing commercial properties across the highway; for those reasons staff said the property is a poor fit for traditional residential development and recommended approval despite a technical inconsistency with the county’s rural residential land‑use designation. The proposed use would be indoor storage only; the site plan prohibits outdoor storage and requires an opaque, six‑foot fence along the property line adjacent to the future residential subdivision. The applicant agreed to consolidate the parcels and to a five‑year vesting period.

Applicant and project details
Applicant Terry Stevens (owner/operator of nearby Christian’s Corners convenience store, as he disclosed) said the site plan shows two rows of storage buildings with internal circulation and stormwater basins; the proposed driveway location was placed as far from the intersection as feasible to reduce intersection conflicts. Stevens told the board the facility would be gated and would have restricted hours; management and rental would be handled locally at the adjacent business.

Board discussion and decision
Board members asked about security, lighting and gate hours. Staff said the site must meet the county’s lighting and access standards and that the conditional site plan prohibits outdoor storage; the proposed six‑foot fence and enhanced buffer on the property’s south and northwest sides were specifically added after a community meeting. Following discussion a board member moved to recommend approval with the stated conditions; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. Staff will forward the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for final action and the applicant’s materials will be part of that record.

Why it matters: The request is small in scale compared with other items the board heard and was framed by staff as a potentially appropriate commercial use given the site’s power‑line constraint, existing nearby commercial uses and the low traffic generation of indoor storage. The planning board’s recommendation does not itself change zoning; the Board of Commissioners will take the final vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Land Use Board | January 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board recommended approval of a conditional rezoning to permit a light‑industrial mini‑storage use on a 2.5‑acre parcel at New Salem Road, subject to the site plan, a six‑foot opaque fence along the residential edge and five‑year vesting.","taxTitle","Union County, North Carolina","taxId",14197,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6362490,"Union County planning board recommends denial of Gold Branch age‑restricted rezoning",6419,162000,6581000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167778-f2f27ac5162a8c04674b5234aeb7b56c&start=162&end=6581","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167778-f2f27ac5162a8c04674b5234aeb7b56c/thumbnail_162000.jpg","/articles/6362490/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-planning-board-recommends-denial-of-Gold-Branch-agerestricted-rezoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362490-49f3d9d1f3553fe58d0f887c6bfc259b/orig.mp4?Expires=1777189185&Signature=SU8hCpnoCAUoai--UdBcetxCn3VJOAD2u8Dk23bQl2wZaO1ztaHnDgS11yKq~l5QZA~5HlxrJ43H9IgV1DrbwNdleoj9dplNszLH-VWZb03tgfKULY27bdcSjmrHgfxg2FkQQB1ZaVH7tONlkFsPHyF8PKaVInSuNxhI5ntJ6Nl08A8Sfij5J9~BCer1uer6uvy2p06n~0H5ZySAPh9PpQ4Piup96UPvPUuJbUyBWY0--H-bbEn9B8eZHtMjgl248NQBiC3zmSZ2ihPpe6RoHrjjKBsI9X~~9aqbKYslaCyFrzgoWchyMrBp61zwbpjxSr756F752c7ecFR3oNpLUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Planning Board recommended denial Tuesday of a conditional rezoning request from RA‑40 to RA‑4 for a proposed age‑restricted residential development called Gold Branch, after several hours of testimony by county staff, the developer and dozens of residents.

County planner Bjorn (last name not specified in the record) told the board the petition (identified in the packet as CZ2024‑008) would rezone roughly 400 acres in Goose Creek Township to allow single‑family detached homes on lots as small as 4,000 square feet under a conditional site plan. The developer proposed 727 homes in a gated, private‑street Crestwood community marketed for buyers 55 and older, with a capped rental rate, HOA governance and a private, decentralized wastewater system that would discharge to a roughly 20‑acre drip field (with a second, reserve drip field of similar size).

Board members and staff said the project would add more than 3,200 daily vehicle trips to nearby roads, increase density well above the county’s 1‑unit‑per‑acre rural residential guidance and rely on private sewage infrastructure and HOA maintenance. After discussion, the board voted to recommend denial of the rezoning; the packet and staff presentation state staff’s recommendation was also denial. The planning board’s recommendation will go to the Union County Board of Commissioners for a final decision at a hearing the county will schedule; staff said notices for the commissioners’ hearing will be mailed to participants.

Why it matters: The project would reconfigure farmland and forested land near Mill Grove Road and state route NC‑218 toward a high‑density, age‑restricted residential product. Planning staff and several board members said the proposed net density (about 2.7 units per acre on a net basis, according to staff) conflicts with the county’s land‑use plan, even if an age‑restricted product reduces school impacts compared with a conventional family subdivision.

Details and debate
Bjorn summarized the conditional rezoning and site plan, noting about 21 acres along Rock Hill Church Road would be split off and excluded from the rezoning because of stream and floodplain constraints. The developer’s conditions include design standards, a traffic‑impact analysis with required access improvements, a $500,000 monetary contribution to the county for off‑site mitigation payable around the platting of the 400th lot, HOA governance, an HOA cap on rentals (5%), and age‑restriction documentation tied to FHA/HUD requirements (80% of units must have a household with someone 55 or older).

Coulter Homes representatives led by Emily Powell presented the Crestwood concept. Powell said the community would be marketed as 55+, that children could visit but not establish residency, and that the HOA documents would enforce the age‑restriction and rental cap. Elizabeth Richard of Kimley‑Horn, the traffic engineer, explained the traffic study and the required geometric improvements: a right‑in/right‑out access on NC‑218, a full‑movement access on Mill Grove Road with a northbound left‑turn lane into the site, plus the developer’s $500,000 contribution for future intersection work in coordination with NCDOT and county staff.

Several planning‑board members and residents pressed the development team on operational details: how the age restriction is enforced, the length of permitted visitor stays (Powell said children may visit up to 90 days per year but may not establish legal residency), how the HOA would maintain private streets and the decentralized wastewater system, and how the county would respond if the HOA or operator defaulted. Kevin Presley, a Class‑4 certified wastewater inspector who appeared as a technical witness, estimated the community’s peak treated flow at about 117,000 gallons per day and described the planned multi‑train treatment and drip‑field design; he said the system would be permitted and inspected under State of North Carolina wastewater rules and would be subject to routine operator inspections and reporting.

Opposition and concern
About 55 residents attended a developer‑hosted community meeting earlier in January and multiple speakers at the planning‑board meeting opposed the rezoning. Opponents cited traffic, narrow existing local roads (Mill Grove Road), possible odors and long‑term maintenance risks from a private wastewater system, and the project’s density relative to the county’s rural residential plan. Several residents said they were concerned that the county would ultimately have to assume responsibility if the private utility or HOA failed; staff and technical witnesses said the state permits and operator obligations create regulatory controls but acknowledged the county would not operate the system.

Board decision and next steps
After debate the planning board moved to recommend denial, adopting the staff consistency and reasonableness statement that cited conflict with the adopted comprehensive plan. Board members emphasized density and infrastructure impacts in their comments. The recommendation will be transmitted to the Union County Board of Commissioners for public hearing and final action; staff said affected residents will receive a notice of the commissioners’ public hearing. No commissioners’ vote occurred at this meeting.

Notes: The record uses the petition identifier CZ2024‑008 in the staff presentation and project materials; at the motion some members cited CZ2024‑007. The packet materials and staff presentation are the authoritative items for the public record; the planning board’s action was a recommendation only and will be considered by the Board of Commissioners.","The Union County Planning Board voted to recommend denial of a conditional rezoning request from RA‑40 to RA‑4 for a 400‑acre, age‑restricted Crestwood/Coulter Homes community, citing inconsistency with the county comprehensive plan and concerns about density, traffic and private wastewater.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board backs mini‑storage rezoning near New Salem Road; conditions include screening and five‑year vesting

Union County planning board recommends denial of Gold Branch age‑restricted rezoning