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

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.