Union County Land Use Board recommends denial of Shenandoah rezoning over traffic, density concerns

The Union County Land Use Board voted unanimously to recommend denial of conditional rezoning petition CZ2025-CZ-004, a request to rezone about 48 acres on Old Waxhaw Monroe Road and frontage on NC 75 from RA-40 to R-10 to allow a 91-lot single-family subdivision.

The petition, presented by county planning staff, described the parcel as roughly 48 acres with frontage on Old Waxhaw Monroe Road and NC 75 and proposed 91 detached single-family homes at slightly more than two units per acre. The applicant proposed a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, two lot widths (70-foot and 96-foot), and 36% open space (the ordinance requires 30% in rural areas). The plan would include two full-access points on Old Waxhaw Monroe Road and a right-in/right-out connection to NC 75; Union County water and sewer service are available and staff said no lift station would be required.

Planning staff presented site details and context, including that the parcel was originally part of an early-2000s master plan tied to the Stonebridge development and that the existing entitlement under older “smart growth” provisions could allow an alternate buildout if rezoning is denied. The presentation noted that the site has no mapped wetlands or floodplains, that school-cluster utilization is presently below capacity, and that a recent neighborhood meeting had drawn seven residents with questions about buffering, road connections and home prices.

The applicant’s representatives, Pam Porter of TLA Associates and Jeff Palmer with Shenandoah Homes, told the board the project would be single-family detached housing, would meet the county’s open-space requirement, and would preserve two small wetland pockets within the open-space area. Porter said the entrances along Old Waxhaw Monroe Road would be full access and the north connection to NC 75 would be right-in/right-out, while the developer planned landscape buffers (40 feet along the two road frontages and 15-foot reforestation buffers along other property lines).

A nearby resident, Hunter Blythe, spoke in public comment and said the road network and existing pavement are in poor condition, expressed concern about loss of farmland and wildlife, and said he believed lots as small as 10,000 square feet would not suit families in the area. Other public commenters questioned whether 91 homes was excessive for the parcel and raised concerns about the proposed cut-through collector road increasing local congestion and speeding.

Board members discussed traffic impacts, the compatibility of R-10 next to rural residential land uses, and the vesting history of the site under prior smart-growth rules (staff explained a prior entitlement could allow roughly 60–67 lots without rezoning). Multiple members expressed concern that the proposed additional lots would increase congestion on NC 75 and local roads and that the adjoining municipality, Mineral Springs, opposed R-10 at the border. After discussion, a board member moved and another seconded a motion to recommend denial. The motion carried unanimously.

The Land Use Board’s recommendation is advisory; the County Commission will make the final decision. Planning staff told the board the commission is scheduled to hear the petition on Aug. 11.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Recommend denial of rezoning petition CZ2025-CZ-004. - Mover: Board member (name not specified in transcript). - Second: Board member (name not specified in transcript). - Tally: Yes 7, No 0, Abstain 0. - Outcome: Recommendation of denial (unanimous).

Why it matters: The recommendation sends the County Commission a unified Land Use Board position against a comparatively higher-density subdivision proposal; the commission’s August hearing will determine whether the rezoning is approved, denied or modified.

What’s next: The petition will be considered by the Union County Board of Commissioners; the Land Use Board’s recommendation and the project’s traffic, school and open-space information will be part of that record.