Planning committee reviews draft PUD ordinance; public commenters urge protection of farmland

Planning staff presented a comprehensive draft amendment to Wilson County's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations and the committee discussed revisions that would lower minimum acreage thresholds, change density calculations, and require traffic studies for all PUD proposals.

The draft would reduce the residential minimum for a PUD from 100 acres to 30 acres and the minimum district size for commercial/industrial PUDs from 15 to 10 acres. It would set a base residential density at 1.75 dwelling units per acre (single‑family) for the minimum PUD size and allow incremental density bonuses for additional preserved open space, capped at +0.3 units per acre. The draft also calls for at least 30% of a PUD's acreage to be preserved as non‑disturbed open space (excluding stormwater ponds and engineered detention), and requires pedestrian circulation, ADA accessibility, minimum private outdoor space, building separation, and masonry/finished exterior standards.

Public comment before the staff presentation emphasized keeping agricultural land in A‑1 zones and opposing PUDs in agricultural areas. "Everybody in every single commissioner's district is not in favor of that," said Michael Swope, a resident, during public comment. Perry Nail, another resident, cited the county's 20‑year land use plan and the plan's stated goal to "preserve rural character and farmland," saying a PUD standard conflicts with preserving A‑1 farmland.

Staff also proposed removing lot‑size and minimum square footage rules and adding mandatory traffic studies for every PUD, regardless of acreage. The draft would require that certain amenities (a clubhouse and at least one recreational amenity) be built within the first 50 dwelling units and add a swimming pool and other facilities at higher thresholds (100 units and each subsequent 100 units). The draft reduces thresholds for land dedication for public facilities (schools, fire/EMS sites, convenience centers) from 500 units to 300 units.

Committee members asked questions about the 30‑acre minimum and the likely cost of infrastructure and approvals for smaller PUDs. Several members expressed concern that too small a minimum might make PUDs expensive or unworkable for developers; others argued the changes provide flexibility and would preserve more open space if structured properly. Planning staff said the proposed open‑space definition excludes engineered retention ponds and active public infrastructure from qualifying as preserved open space.

The committee voted to send the draft to the Planning Commission for public review; staff said the Planning Commission would consider the draft at its August meeting, and if recommended the public meeting on the land‑use plan would be scheduled for Sept. 25. Staff noted that if the steering committee does not act on the land‑use plan at its Aug. 1 meeting the timeline could slide into 2026.

The committee did not adopt final ordinance text; it asked staff to present the draft to the Planning Commission and to incorporate committee feedback on density, acreage thresholds, open space definitions, and utility/traffic coordination with the county road commission and school officials.