Union County land-use board recommends approval of Augustine rezoning; staff had urged denial

The Union County Land Use Board on Feb. 24 voted to recommend approval of rezoning petition RZ-2026-002, a request to change a half-acre parcel from R-A40 to R-15, despite staff—oncerns that the change is inconsistent with the countys 2050 comprehensive plan.

Planning staffer John presented the petition and told the board the property is shown as rural residential in the Union County 2050 comprehensive plan, which generally contemplates one unit per acre in that land-use category. John said the site already has approved well and septic permits and noted the parcel appears to have been deeded off without undergoing subdivision review in the early 2000s. Staff recommended denial, citing the proposed density and the risk of creating precedent for future lot-splitting.

Petitioner Amy Augustine, who identified herself as the current owner, told the board she purchased the half-acre lot from Mary Clark about a year earlier and that county staff had initially indicated a site-built home could be allowed. "I called Union County and just said, hey, what is the allowable uses?" Augustine said. "At the time whoever I spoke with said, yes, you can do a site built home here given the fact its been deeded off separately as its own address." Augustine said permits for a well and septic were obtained in good faith before she submitted a building permit.

Neighbors raised concerns about precedent, traffic and local water supplies. Thomas Perry, who said he owns the 20-acre parcel across the road, warned that additional homes could strain roads and wells and said the area should be preserved for farming. "Once more people come in, there are more cars on the road," Perry said. "Our wells have dropped and I don't have a well to water my animals anymore." Perry requested the board weigh the longer-term impacts before allowing smaller lots in rural areas.

Board members expressed mixed views. Several reiterated the staff position that permitting a smaller lot now could encourage similar rezoning down the road; others pointed to the parcels long-standing use and the presence of a prior mobile home as reasons to consider approval. One board member framed the choice as balancing local family property decisions against broader plan consistency.

After debate, a board member moved to recommend approval of RZ-2026-002 and to adopt an advisory consistency and reasonableness statement; another member seconded. The board approved the recommendation with multiple ayes and one opposed voice vote. The board's action is a recommendation to the County Commissioners, who will make the final decision.

The board did not attach conditions on this straight rezoning (staff and members noted straight rezonings cannot carry conditions). Staff said it will notify the petitioner when the item is scheduled for the County Commissioners.

What happens next: The Union County Board of Commissioners will consider the boards recommendation and the advisory consistency statement at a future meeting; staff will notify the petitioner of scheduling.