Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Denial Rac Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies request to expand Rural Activity Center and rezone farm land to RAC
Summary
The Marion County Board on July 15 unanimously denied a request to expand the Rural Activity Center and rezone about 18.72 acres from agricultural to RAC after staff and nearby residents said the expansion would encroach on the farmland preservation area and that existing RAC acreage remains underused.
The Marion County Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied July 15 a proposed comprehensive‑plan amendment and zoning change that would have moved an 18.72‑acre portion of agricultural land into the county’s Rural Activity Center (RAC) and rezoned the parcel from general agriculture (A‑1) to RAC.
County planning staff recommended denial, saying the RAC is underutilized, the proposed expansion would extend the RAC beyond the general frontage/radius policy and could encourage dispersed commercial development inconsistent with the county’s farmland preservation policy. The applicant, Thomas Moore, represented by Tillman Associates, said his family operates equine‑related services and small farm‑supply activity and offered a developer’s agreement to preserve a no‑touch vegetative buffer of roughly 50 feet around the parcel. The applicant said the proposed uses would serve rural customers and reduce trips into urban areas.
More than a dozen residents, nearby landowners and conservation representatives spoke in opposition during an extended public record. Speakers said the existing RAC already contains undeveloped acreage that could meet demand, warned the change would set a precedent for commercial sprawl in the farmland preservation area and said the site’s rural neighbors and new farm owners bought property expecting rural protection. Stakeholders including Horse Farms Forever and local farm owners submitted written comments opposing the expansion.
Commission discussion noted county policy and the planning commission’s recommendation. Commissioners said they were mindful of farmland preservation objectives, the county’s RAC design rules and the fact that existing RAC acreage was not built out. After debate the board voted 5–0 to deny both the land‑use amendment and the rezoning.
What this means: The parcel remains in its current rural land use and A‑1 zoning. The applicant was offered a procedural alternative during the meeting — withdraw the rezoning and apply for a special‑use permit tied to specific, limited agricultural commercial activities; the board agreed to waive the fee if the applicant chose that route and to provide staff guidance — but the land‑use amendment and zoning change were denied.
