Commissioners amend UDO to add 'rural residential' district, send private-storage proposal back to planning board

The Cleveland County Board of Commissioners on May 19 adopted two text amendments to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), moved a third back to the planning board for additional development standards and approved revised home-occupation rules by a 4–1 margin.

Planner Chris Martin told commissioners the package included four text amendments: modifications to the Rural AG district, creation of a new Rural Residential district, new rules for private storage buildings, and revised rules for home occupations. "The second will be the creation of a new zoning district called rural residential," Martin said as he described the proposal, which would add a one-acre minimum lot size, a 100‑foot road frontage requirement and a 50‑foot building setback for dwellings in that new district.

Why it matters: the changes are intended to give property owners in rural parts of Cleveland County more options while protecting agricultural lands and scenic views called for in the county’s adopted land‑use plan. Martin said the planning board reviewed the drafts and recommended approval of the Rural AG modifications and the new Rural Residential district as consistent with the land‑use plan.

What the board decided
- Case 23‑19 (Rural AG modifications): Commissioners voted to approve edits that remove a set of commercial uses staff judged incompatible with the district’s stated purpose (examples presented by staff included RV dealerships, tire shops and auto repair). The motion passed unanimously.
- Case 23‑07 (New Rural Residential district): The board approved adding the Rural Residential zoning option to the UDO; chairmen emphasized that adoption sets only the language and does not rezone property without a separate rezoning application. The motion passed unanimously.
- Case 23‑08 (Private storage buildings): Staff proposed allowing private storage buildings as a primary use on vacant tracts of 3 acres or more; the planning board recommended a size‑based approach (1 acre → 1,500 sq ft; 2 acres → 2,500 sq ft; 3+ acres → 4,000 sq ft) and additional development controls. Multiple commissioners raised concerns that allowing large storage buildings with insufficient setbacks could make lots appear commercial rather than residential. Commissioner (Speaker 5) moved to send the item back to the planning board for more detailed development and construction standards; the motion carried unanimously. Martin said staff will work with the planning board to refine setbacks, building-size limits and other protections.
- Case 23‑09 (Home occupations): The board approved amended home‑occupation rules that create an option for properties larger than 5 acres to operate a larger home business (up to five employees and more commercial vehicles limited to two‑axle vehicles), with added landscaping, screening and other development standards; the motion passed 4–1.

Key clarifications from the record: the planning board’s private‑storage recommendation included a graduated maximum building size tied to lot acreage (1,500 sq ft on 1 acre; 2,500 sq ft on 2 acres; 4,000 sq ft on 3+ acres). For primary‑structure setbacks discussed at the meeting, staff cited a 30‑foot right‑of‑way setback, 10‑foot side setbacks and 30‑foot rear setbacks as the baseline for primary structures. The home‑occupation option as presented includes operational hour limits (draft language cited a 7 a.m.–8 p.m. window) and a driveway/business setback provision discussed during Q&A.

Next steps: For private storage buildings, staff was instructed to return the draft to the planning board with the board’s concerns documented so the planning board can propose revised language and development standards. The Rural AG and Rural Residential text amendments are adopted as UDO language and will be available for property owners to pursue rezoning through the standard application, planning‑board review and public‑hearing process.

Quotes from the meeting: "We've come up with some language that would allow storage buildings to be on a vacant tract of land as the primary use," Chris Martin said during the storage‑building presentation. Commissioner (Speaker 5) warned that the board would have trouble approving language that allowed storage buildings to look like commercial buildings in residential areas.

The board moved next to the regular agenda after finishing the public‑hearing actions.