Planning board recommends rezoning of Yount Road parcel to Residential‑Agriculture

The Rockingham County Planning Board on April 14, 2025, voted to recommend approval of zoning case 2025‑06, changing a parcel off Yount Road (tax parcel 797901454330) from Office‑Institutional (OI) to Residential‑Agriculture (RA). Planning staff presented the case, no members of the public spoke, and the board approved the recommendation to the county commissioners.

Adam Barr, planning staff, told the board, “Before us tonight is zoning planning case 2025‑06. This is gonna be a request for a conventional rezoning, going from office institutional to residential agriculture.” He said the parcel sits just off U.S. 87 between Wentworth and Eden and that the Rockingham County Land Use Plan identifies the site as G‑1, a low‑density growth area that calls primarily for the RA district.

The staff presentation included maps and aerial imagery showing primarily residential uses in the area, and Barr said the parcel currently appears to be cleared and contains no visible structures. He also noted that the technical review committee (TRC) has approved nearby work: seven adjacent lots shown on the presentation are under construction. Barr said water service would be provided by Dan River Water and that utility transformers are in place.

No applicant representative attended, and no members of the public who signed up to speak addressed the board. Board members asked questions about prior uses and whether the request would constitute a down‑zoning. Barr explained the recent change to North Carolina General Statute 160D, saying that the statute restricts government‑initiated down‑zonings but that a rezoning submitted by a consenting property owner does not raise the same statutory barrier: “that change prohibits down zoning. However, if you have the consent of the property owner involved.”

Board members also asked whether the RA district would allow manufactured homes; Barr confirmed that RA permits manufactured housing forms that RA encompasses. One board member said there was no legal reason to deny the request given the lack of opposition and the materials in the packet.

A board member moved to recommend approval “based on the consistency and reasonableness determination statements that are included in the planning board agenda packages, as may be amended,” the motion was seconded, and the board voted in favor. The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners, which will hold a public meeting before making a final decision.

The planning board did not record individual roll‑call vote names in the transcript; the chair stated there was no opposition when members were asked to signify by raised hands.