Union County steering committee presents rural land-use vision and outlines purchase-of-development-rights approach

At the Feb. 25 meeting of the Union County Land Use Board, Alan Baucham, chair of the county’s rural land-use plan steering committee, presented an updated vision statement and described draft strategies aimed at preserving farmland, open space and wildlife habitat while guiding rural development.

Baucham read the steering committee’s approved vision: “In the rural areas of Union County, we cherish a way of life where farms and protected open spaces define our community. As stewards of the land, we treasure the balance between living close to nature and preserving our agricultural heritage.” He told the board the committee will deliver recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners in April 2026 and asked for feedback from the Land Use Board.

The steering committee described partners, funding and analyses that inform its work. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission provided $10,000 through its Partners for Green Growth program with a matching $10,000 contribution from Union County; that contract began in October 2024 and the steering committee projects an 18‑month schedule with final work targeted for February 2026. Catawba Lands Conservancy has produced a countywide model on a 30‑meter grid to help identify quality farmland and wildlife habitat for prioritization and conservation.

The committee reported public outreach results: about 210 responses to an online vision survey, with the top response (about 54 percent) favoring maintaining agriculture. The committee also outlined a range of draft strategies it is considering: expanding or refining rural land‑use designations, prioritizing land set‑asides in subdivisions, adjusting lot‑size and density standards, adding conditions to allow some commercial or contractor uses on residential parcels without full rezoning, expanding rural home‑occupation categories, and strengthening stream and water‑body buffers.

Baucham and other speakers described an existing purchase‑of‑development‑rights (PDR) approach the county is already funding in part. Commissioners in 2023 approved using the three‑year “lookback” funds collected when land leaves present‑use valuation to seed a PDR program; the amount cited in the presentation was $969,000 and the county has committed that funding ongoing. The county’s current practice, as described to the board, pays about 70 percent of the difference between the property’s present‑use value and its tax (market) value to the landowner as compensation for permanently restricting development rights. The presentation estimated that translated to roughly $7,000–$7,500 per acre on the initial parcel discussed.

Steering‑committee partners and roles described: Catawba Lands Conservancy will help identify and verify conservation priorities; Soil and Water Conservation District will hold easement titles and pursue state and federal grant reimbursements; and the Wildlife Resources Commission provides non‑regulatory conservation recommendations. Baucham said easements purchased under the program are perpetual and bind future owners; the deed remains with the landowner while development rights are removed.

Board members and attendees raised concerns and practical issues. Several asked whether large‑scale clearcutting and recent land‑clearing for short‑term farming is being tracked and whether the amount of contiguous woodland has changed; planning staff reported a land‑cover analysis from 2014–2020 showing the county’s tree cover percentage remained essentially the same, though contiguous forests have fragmented. Members also pressed for ways to help older landowners who face high tax bills and short timelines to sell, noting federal and state grant programs can take five to seven years to deliver funds. Baucham said the county program aims to accelerate access to funds for qualifying owners.

Other substantive concerns included private engineered septic systems and the role of county environmental health; several board members said reliance on private engineers can reduce the county’s oversight and lead to long‑term county liability if systems fail. Committee members discussed bonding or developer financial assurances, and whether municipalities’ approvals (for example, new sewer or pump stations) can transfer long‑term costs to county taxpayers. Steering‑committee members said these enforcement and funding questions will be part of the strategy discussions and that some items may require state legislative change.

The committee asked the Land Use Board to provide feedback as draft strategies are developed; Baucham said the steering committee will report to the Land Use Board when it seeks specific input. The steering committee meets monthly on the third Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. in the Stony Rushing Room and intends to present its recommended rural land‑use plan and implementation strategies to the Board of County Commissioners in spring 2026.

Votes at the Union County Land Use Board meeting were procedural: the board approved the meeting agenda and the Jan. 28 minutes by voice vote and later voted to adjourn. No county ordinance or zoning text changes were adopted at this meeting.