The Anson County Planning Board on Monday unanimously approved a class B special use permit, SUP26‑01, allowing Regina Cason to operate Mina’s Garden, a nonprofit focused on reducing rural health disparities, from a 1.3‑acre property near Morven.

Planning Department staff told the board there was a clerical error in the printed staff report but confirmed the correct parcel identification number and displayed the correction. Staff described the site at 10349 NC 145 South as zoned R‑20 (medium‑density residential), located roughly half a mile southwest of Morven’s corporate boundary and wholly within Anson County’s development jurisdiction. After reviewing ordinance standards, environmental constraints, and the land‑use plan, the planner recommended approval.

"It is my recommendation for approval of this project," Planning Department staff said during the presentation, summarizing findings that the proposed home occupation would conform with residential character and the county's plan. The planner noted an NWI‑designated wetland about 800 feet from the parcel and said he did not anticipate the home‑based operations would affect that wetland; he also cited an estimated 1,700 vehicles per day on NC 145 (2023 estimate) when describing site context.

Regina Cason, the applicant and founder of Mina’s Garden, described the nonprofit as "dedicated to reducing health disparities in rural communities by providing education, resources and support to prevent and manage chronic diseases." Cason said she will serve as CEO and executive director, outlined a small board and volunteer support, and said the proposed operation would be office‑based and compatible with the residential character of the area.

Staff and board members discussed two employees who would reside at the dwelling and be family members, consistent with the ordinance's limits on home‑occupation staffing. Staff flagged an ambiguity in the ordinance’s residency language: Cason lists a primary residence in Charlotte but says she routinely stays at the Morven property and treats it as a secondary residence. The planner told the board the ordinance does not strictly define what it means to "reside at" a tract and that interpretation is left to the board when making findings of fact.

After the presentation and the applicant’s comments, the presiding board member moved to approve SUP26‑01. The motion was seconded, the board voted in favor, and the presiding member announced the permit had been approved and offered best wishes to the applicant.

The board closed the quasi‑judicial hearing, recorded that no members of the public were present for comment, and adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m.

What happens next: the decision is a planning board action subject to any appeal rights under county procedure; no appeals or further administrative steps were recorded during the meeting.