Union County denies Shenandoah conditional rezoning for 91-home subdivision

The Union County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 2 to deny a conditional rezoning petition (CZ‑2025‑004) that would have changed the zoning from RA‑40 to R‑10 for a proposed Shenandoah development of 91 single-family homes.

Lee Jensen, Union County planning director, summarized the petition and conditions on the record, saying the request would convert RA‑40 to R‑10 with conditions limited to the site plan dated July 8, five‑year vesting and a requirement that the development meet all requirements of the Union County Development Ordinance. Jensen said the land-use board had unanimously recommended denial after public comment at the prior hearing; he also noted one municipal partner, Mineral Springs, opposes the project.

A commissioner who spoke during the business portion of the meeting cited concerns about increased density, traffic and the land-use board’s recommendation when making a motion to deny. “The project would entail going from RA‑40 to R‑10. That’s something that I’ve got potential issue with because you’re obviously increasing your density there,” the motioning commissioner said, and moved to deny CZ‑2025‑004 and adopt a statement of consistency and reasonableness supporting denial.

The motion passed; the transcript records the voice vote in favor. The record shows no alternate motion to remand the request or to adopt modified conditions. The planning director said staff remains available to answer questions and to process any future applications that comply with the development ordinance.

The transcript does not include a verbatim text of the board’s adopted consistency/reasonableness statement; it records that the board adopted such a statement in support of denial. The denial preserves the existing RA‑40 zoning and leaves the applicant free to revise or withdraw the petition and return with a different proposal under county procedures.