Union County steering committee pitches expanded easement purchases, contiguous open space and funding options in rural land-use strategy update

Union County planning staff and the rural land-use steering committee presented draft strategies intended to preserve farmland and rural character, and sought input from the Land Use Board and attending residents on funding and implementation.

Alan Bauchman, chair of the steering committee, and planning staff outlined a package of proposed strategies that survey respondents and the steering committee tended to support. Top-supported ideas included expanding the agricultural easement and purchase-of-development-rights program, requiring contiguous open space in major subdivisions rather than scattered pockets, and protecting intact forest and stream corridors as part of open-space requirements. The presentation noted some strategies would require amendments to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance and coordination with municipalities and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

Staff described the program’s initial funding source as clawback proceeds from the three-year rollback on properties leaving the Present-Use Value (PUV) agricultural program (so-called “clawback money”) that the Board of Commissioners approved to use for purchase of development rights. Planning staff reported roughly $874,000 was available in the first year’s intake and that enrollment for the county’s pilot program had been open four weeks with nine landowner applications at the time of the meeting. Soil and Water Conservation District staff explained that the county’s approach uses a typical purchase model (for example, a 75% purchase / 25% donation structure for easements) and that the district can hold easements; staff gave a recent illustrative figure of about $721,000 for a 104‑acre purchase as an example of valuation and structure.

Committee members and residents raised several practical and equity questions: who pays (proposal of a possible bond referendum or sales-tax mechanism was discussed), whether taxpayers should fund perpetual easements for individual landowners, and how to rank applications if demand exceeds available funds. Steering-committee members said a bond referendum would permit voters to decide whether to dedicate broader taxpayer-funded support for land preservation; several board members and residents cautioned that bond or tax proposals require careful public outreach and could face organized opposition.

The presentation also covered neutral-or-mixed strategies that had less public enthusiasm on the survey: identifying limited rural centers (small country-store–type services), allowing low-impact commercial uses by right on larger lots (for trades such as plumbers, electricians or landscapers), and additional regulatory options such as requiring major subdivisions to have access to a public utility or processing major subdivisions as rezonings. Staff noted these would require UDO amendments and additional policy work.

Public commenters, including long-time residents and former planning advocates, expressed support for preserving farmland and open space but urged pragmatic, implementable steps, strong public engagement, and sensitivity to private-property rights and funding impacts on taxpayers. The steering committee asked the Land Use Board for feedback and indicated it would return with refined strategy language and implementation options later in the year for additional public review and consideration by the Board of Commissioners.

No formal board vote was taken; the item was presented for discussion and input.