Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Person County adopts series of zoning text amendments to clarify land‑use rules

Person County Board of Commissioners · November 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Person County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 18 approved multiple planning ordinance text amendments to clarify subdivision categories, permitted‑use tables and definitions; one commissioner abstained from a permitted‑use vote because of a trade affiliation. Staff said none of the amendments carry direct financial impacts.

The Person County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 18 approved a package of text amendments to the county planning ordinance intended to clarify how subdivisions, multiple dwellings and dozens of permitted uses are defined and reviewed.

Planning director (name not given) told the board the measures are primarily edits to improve language and consolidate similar uses in the permitted‑use table and definition sections, and that the planning board recommended most of the changes. “There’s no regulatory change. There are no financial impacts to this,” the planning director said when presenting the subdivision amendment, and later described the TA‑12‑25 update as a consolidation of retail, office and construction‑trade uses to make the table “more concise and clear.”

The board approved four separate petitions: TA‑08‑25 (subdivision regulations clarifying categories and access requirements), TA‑09‑25 (allowing multiple dwellings on lots subject to conditions and updating definitions), TA‑12‑25 (comprehensive update of permitted‑use tables and definitions, including treatment of data centers and vehicle/camper uses), and TA‑13‑25 (consolidation of the junkyard and mobile‑home park ordinances into the planning ordinance). Staff emphasized the amendments aim to improve clarity and consistency with the Person County and City of Roxborough joint comprehensive land use plan.

During the TA‑12‑25 hearing an industrial property owner, Don West, spoke in favor of allowing outdoor/open storage in the general industrial (GI) district, telling commissioners that large projects such as a planned data center and a new power plant will need outdoor staging and that unclear zoning creates uncertainty for investors. “Without clear zoning approval for this open storage, potential businesses will face delays and possibly take their business to other counties,” West said.

A procedural dispute arose on TA‑12‑25 when Commissioner Long (identified in the record as having ties to the construction trade) asked to be recused; the county attorney explained that being in the trades does not automatically create a conflict, and Long chose to abstain from the vote. The board approved TA‑12‑25 with the abstention on the record.

On TA‑13‑25 the board accepted a substitute motion to change the site‑plan specification language from “shall” to “may” in the section requiring plans to be prepared by registered professionals; the substitute passed and the main motion to adopt TA‑13‑25 passed as amended.

Votes at a glance

- TA‑08‑25 (subdivision regulations – clarify subdivision types and access): approved (motion moved and adopted) (public hearing opened and closed with no speakers). (topicintro SEG 044; topfinish SEG 095) - TA‑09‑25 (multiple dwellings: permitted‑use and definition updates): approved (public hearing, no speakers). (topicintro SEG 111; topfinish SEG 191) - TA‑12‑25 (permitted‑use table and definitions, consolidation of dozens of uses): approved; Commissioner Long abstained from the vote. Don West testified in favor of allowing outdoor storage in GI. (topicintro SEG 206; topfinish SEG 593) - TA‑13‑25 (consolidate junkyard and mobile‑home park ordinances into planning ordinance): approved after a substitute changing several “shall” requirements to “may.” (topicintro SEG 594; topfinish SEG 701)

Why it matters: The amendments change how staff and boards categorize and review development proposals in Person County by clarifying definitions and when certain uses require special‑use review, which affects how conditions and buffers can be applied during permitting. Staff repeatedly told the board these are text and organizational changes rather than new regulatory burdens.

What’s next: The new text amendments were adopted at the Nov. 18 meeting and will be effective per the county’s ordinance process; staff said they may return with a future amendment to further clarify distinctions between “open storage” and “outdoor storage.”

Sources and provenance: Planning director presentation and staff analysis (see planning director remarks and sample motions; topic spans begin SEG 057 and SEG 206 for the larger TA packages).