Waynesville Town Council will hear public comments next week regarding its upcoming vote that would purportedly allow for conservation of rural farmland.
Last month, Waynesville’s planning board discussed the potential zoning amendment in detail before ultimately voting 6-3 to recommend town council passes it.
The amendment would add a new zoning category called “rural conservation districts” in light of public pushback against recent housing developments that a vocal contingent of residents consider blights on the area’s historically pastoral landscape.
The amendment aims to create an optional zoning category that reduces the base density and allows for fewer property uses. During the public hearing for the amendment before the zoning board held last month, Land Administrator Alex Mumby said property owners could opt into the zoning category either individually or as a group through a rezoning or map amendment request. Applying as a group is not only advantageous because it creates a larger contiguous district; it also allows for splitting the $200 permitting fee between all property owners.
“This district is primarily single-family homes, hobby farms, bona fide farms and other agricultural land with limited allowances for other uses within the civic, institutional, agricultural and infrastructure categories,” Mumby said.
Once a property or group of properties is designated as a member of a rural conservation district, or RCON, it will remain in that status until someone requests to rezone that property back to one of the currently existing categories.
After Mumby explained the amendment and answered some questions from board members, the public had a chance to comment. Resident Martha Mills, who also chairs the farmland preservation board, said the amendment sounded overwhelmingly positive as far as she could tell.
“I know I personally have a farm that’s in the [extraterritorial jurisdiction], and I would love for it to be zoned just ag and not some of this house on top of house,” she said. “We have to preserve our farmland. I worked for USDA Farm Service Agency for 33 years, and I was over on raccoon road. It’s very disturbing to me to pass by and see house on top of house. We need to think about our future, the folks that put food on our tables. I know you can’t stop growth, but I think we need options out there for those farmers who wish to address that, and I hope that this does move forward and we can have a choice.”
However, resident Patrick Bradshaw, speaking in his personal capacity and not as a representative of his employer, Civil Design Concepts, warned that reducing the maximum base density is tantamount to downzoning, something the state legislature recently prohibited except in specific circumstances.
“You take rural density from six to four, the next time we meet, we will take it down to two,” he said. “The next time, we’ll take it to one.”
Following the public comments, board member John Mason brought up a concern — a property owner could opt into an RCON district then rezone to something higher, ultimately saving them on their property tax bill for however many years they’re in an RCON district. Zoning board attorney Ron Sneed addressed the board and spoke to Mason’s concern, arguing that a slight reduction in a tax bill would likely not be the key motivation for someone looking to create a rural conservation district.
“I think people will do this so that they will always have room between them and their neighbor … I think that’s probably the bigger incentive,” he said.
Board Chair Ginger Hain questioned whether there are ways to incentivize people to opt into an RCON. Town Planner Elizabeth Teague said that while there may not be a carrot they can provide, the town has a stick for those who want to rezone out of an RCON.
“There may be one thing you could do, when that person comes back to rezone it back to high density, you say no, or the council says no. I mean, that’s, that’s the legislative process,” Teague said.
“Then you can’t just flip it back automatically,” she added. “You have to start again. You have to make applications public hearings.”
Teague mentioned that RCONs are just one of many ways to go for a property owner looking to conserve their land. Along with options through the state, there are land trusts and conservation easements.
Ultimately, Hain contended that this change would reflect the will of the community that has been heard time and time again at public hearings. Even if only some single property owners opt in, it may look like “polka dots of RCONs” where people are “finally standing up and saying, ‘I’m doing something.’”
The amendment initially set a 45-foot maximum building height; however. that was changed to exclude tall structures common to farms like silos from that requirement.
The measure passed. Waynesville Town Council will host a public hearing on the matter at 5:30 p.m. June 9 at town hall.