County continues to revise proposed UDO
A stakeholder group is revising Johnston's draft Unified Development Ordinance based on community input, including comments received during a town hall meeting on March 23.
County Commissioners won’t adopt a new Unified Development Ordinance until Oct. 5.
And before they do, Johnston residents will have at least four chances to weigh in publicly on the proposed land-development rules.
Already, a stakeholder group made up of farmers, developers and others has been revising its original UDO draft based on previous public feedback. “We have had five meetings since this board asked us to reconvene the stakeholder group and take a look at the UDO,” Planning Director Braston Newton told County Commissioners on May 4.
The group is being thorough. “We have gone through chapters A and B line by line,” Newton said, referring to the chapters on the UDO’s general provisions and zoning. “The next step is to have that vetted through legal just to make sure we’ve made no missteps. Once that’s done, we will release those.”
Next up are Chapter C (Development Standards) and Chapter D (Subdivision Standards). The group hopes to complete its work by June 10.
The proposed UDO, with all revisions, will be available for public review from June through September. Tentatively, another drop-in session for the public will be held Thursday, July 16, followed by a public hearing before the Planning Board on Tuesday, Aug. 18.
County Commissioners would then hold public hearings on Sept. 9 and Sept. 21 before adopting the UDO in October.
Already, the stakeholder group is deleting proposed regulations of farm animals in subdivisions. “This Board wanted that portion removed,” Newton said. “We are true to our word, and that will be removed
Any complaints about animals would go instead to Johnston County Animal Services.
At a community meeting in March, the public was divided over the width of buffers that developers would have to plant between their new houses and neighboring farms.
A 75-foot buffer garnered the most votes — 43. “The next highest vote-getter was the 35-foot fully planted or partially planted buffer, and that was 34 votes,” Newton noted, adding that 150- and 50-foot buffers enjoyed little support.
The stakeholder group is equally divided, Newton said. “The group is kind of all over the board still about this,” he said. “The one thing I think everyone can fully agree upon is it does need to be a fully planted buffer, and we have some standards proposed for that.”
The buffer rules will be mindful of the crops that Johnston farmers grow, Newton said. “We want to ensure that we don’t do anything to impact cross-pollination and damage crops,” he said. “We’re also looking at expanding the invasive species restrictions. We don’t want them here, so we will be expanding that.”
Newton said the stakeholder group was still debating whether to use gross or net density to determine how many houses a developer can build on a tract.
Gross density encompasses an entire tract, including wetlands, streams and other features that are off-limits to building. Net density removes those unusable acres from the calculation and could lead to fewer allowed houses in a subdivision.
“Currently, there is a net density that is proposed in the ordinance, and that’s a departure from where we’re at today,” Newton said. “We use a gross acreage for calculation. But once again, this is a discussion among the group.”
The draft UDO would also require more feet between the front of a house and the street — 30 feet as opposed to the current 20.
“Twenty-foot street depth is extremely shallow, in our opinion,” Newton said. “Vehicles have become bigger, and as you put those in a driveway … they sometimes encroach and maybe get out into the street. We want to ensure everybody has safe passage out on those public streets.”
“We have also proposed a minimum lot width of 100 feet,” Newton added.
Finally, the proposed UDO would allow accessory dwelling units, essentially a second home on a lot, as long as they were on a permanent foundation and featured a living space, a full kitchen and bathroom. Also, the dwellings could be no larger than the primary dwelling on the lot, and the UDO would prohibit RVs and mobile homes as accessory dwellings.
“We do know there are housing affordability concerns in the county,” Newton said. “There are special circumstances where there is care that needs to be given to a loved one, especially as they age.”
Page last updated on: May 14, 2026