Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After public comment, Person County keeps 'Rural Conservation' label for district rather than renaming it 'Rural Development'
Summary
The Person County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 2 to retain the name “Rural Conservation” for a county zoning district after residents urged keeping language that signals protection of agricultural lands and rural character.
The Person County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 2 to keep the zoning district name “Rural Conservation” in the county Unified Development Ordinance after hearing a public hearing and multiple public comments urging retention of conservation‑focused language.
Planning staff explained the text amendment (TA‑06‑25) was initiated by the planning board to rename the Rural Conservation District because the county also has an R (residential) district and planners sought a distinct label. The planning board recommended “Rural District” after their public hearing.
Three residents spoke in opposition to removing the word “conservation.” Claudia Berryhill referenced the county’s 2021 joint comprehensive land‑use plan and a 2016 farmland‑preservation plan, saying those policy documents emphasize preserving agricultural lands and rural character. Nancy McCormick and Carolyn Manjo told commissioners that the public engagement and planning studies support a name that signals protection rather than development.
After the public comment period, a commissioner moved to retain the “Rural Conservation” name to align with the community vision the speakers described. The board adopted the motion; the transcript records the motion and that “the ayes have it.” The record does not include a roll‑call tally.
Planning staff emphasized that the action changes only the district name and not the underlying standards or permitted uses. Staff said the adoption will be a search‑and‑replace update in the ordinance text so that the prior rules and permitted uses remain unchanged.
Speakers who opposed the change cited the comprehensive plan’s first guiding principle — to “celebrate our rural character and lifestyle” — and asked the board to let the district name reflect that policy objective. Commissioners who voted to retain the existing name framed the decision as consistent with community input captured during the planning process.
The board’s decision leaves existing development standards and permitted uses intact; only the label for the district will remain “Rural Conservation.”
