Home > Thriving Together Newsletter > Johnston residents weigh in on proposed UDO rules

Johnston residents weigh in on proposed UDO rules


Johnston residents had a lot to say about the buffer developers should create between their new homes and neighboring farms.

 Johnston County has held two drop-in sessions on its draft Unified Development Ordinance. Here’s what Johnstonians are saying on a host of UDO topics.

Buffers

  • A minimum 75-foot buffer with flexibility to adjust if both property owners agree or for special circumstances.
  • Require developers to retain trees when feasible.
  • Buffers are needed to protect farmers from residents and residents from farm operations. They also provide a small amount of wildlife habitat.
  • A 35-foot buffer is sufficient, and I fully support not increasing it.
  • Need 75 feet.
  • I would certainly support a buffer of at least 35 feet but prefer a 75-foot buffer. This is important to protect the rural areas of Johnston.
  • My largest concern is protecting each landowner’s private property rights. (This person imagined two neighboring farms that ultimately sell to developers, one before the other. A required buffer could reduce the value of the first farm sold for development because the developer would have less land available for homes. The neighboring farm that sells later could potentially avoid that same burden — and enjoy a higher sales price — because the buffer would already exist on the adjoining property.) 
  • As a farmer owner surrounded by houses, we have had a good relationship with most homeowners. One, however, uses the pasture for his golf balls. Another has cleared all the trees and vegetation to his property line and thrown the waste in our pasture. Adequate buffers would help; 75 feet is our preferred choice.
  • My preferred option is at least 75 feet of separation. I could support a minimum 45 feet of separation. The current design of less than that would not accomplish the goals of protecting my farmland.
  • I’m against changing the buffer to 35 feet or 75 feet because that will be considered downzoning, and that is against state law.
  • I would like to see a way for flexibility between a developed parcel and surrounding landowners. A waiver or other mechanism appears useful.
  • No less than a 75-foot buffer. Buffer modification agreements will set farmers up to be strong-armed, intimidated to agree to less protection of their operations.
  • New development should not have to pay for a buffer. If the farmer wants a buffer, the farmer should create it.
  • Farms should have a 75-foot protection buffer. Poultry and hog farms should have a larger buffer and wording that protects from litigation from bordering development.
  • I believe that no more than a 25-foot buffer should be required for subdivisions. Lot owners in subdivisions with a buffer should not have to pay property taxes on the buffer.
  • A property owner should never have to buffer themselves from the activities that are conducted on neighboring property. If I am a junkyard, should my neighbors be required to buffer from me?
  • How is it legal to require a landowner to lose property because of a particular neighbor?
  • If a buffer is truly needed or desired by farmers, then a buffer of up to 20 feet may be appropriate. That is 20 feet larger than current requirements. The Commissioners need to make sure the voices they hear are truly from farmland owners and not just people who want to stop growth.

Subdivisions

  • County Commissioners should vote on all subdivisions of 10 or more rooftops or those that want water and, or sewer.
  • Commissioners should have the final vote on the development on the land, with the good of the people in mind.
  • Citizens should get a public hearing opportunity on all major subdivisions. Preference on who approves subdivisions:
  • Minor — staff.
  • 14 or fewer lots — Planning Board.
  • 20 or more lots — County Commissioners
  • Approvals: 11 or fewer, planning director and Planning Board; 12 or more, planning director, Planning Board and County Commissioners.
  • More resident approval and involvement are needed vs. letting more be approved without community feedback.
  • All subdivisions over five lots should go before the County Commissioners. The Commissioners should not hide behind the Planning Department
  • No approval for more than one single-family home unless it goes before the full Board of County Commissioners.
  • County Commissioners are elected to serve the citizens. They should have to approve all subdivisions.

Open spaces

  • Can we require more green space? Vegetation? Can we require more from developers? When was the last time you stopped to admire a parking lot?

Adequate Public Facility Ordinance

  • Tie development approval to available infrastructure.
  • The County should have adequate water, goods and services before more development takes place.
  • We need an adequate public facilities ordinance that considers the capacity of schools, utilities, emergency services and other public services when making decisions about subdivisions. 

Commercial shooting ranges

  • The limitations on shooting ranges shouldn’t be so strict. They should be allowed in a few more districts and have smaller setbacks.
  • Shooting ranges need clarity.
  • The trajectory requirement needs clarity as any farmland would be a residential district and it has no distance set.
  • There could be consideration of differing types of ranges; for instance, trap and shoot ranges would need much less drop zone.
  • Modern range designs such as over-shoot baffling could be allowed as an alternative to excessive setbacks.
  • Shooting ranges need clarification on when it rises to the standard of “public.” Would a private club of large enough impact be affected?
  • Shooting range language for backstops needs clarity. Maybe a distance requirement.

Paper districts

  • I received information and clarification on the paper district. The word “paper district” is misleading. It makes it sound as though it is mapped out on paper in specific zoning districts.
  • I believe that the paper zoning districts are adding another layer of complexity on top of the current process, which isn’t overly beneficial for anyone. Down zoning is banned in North Carolina, and this is an attempt at trying to circumvent the rules.
  • Paper districts are unfair.

Vape shops

  • The 1,000-foot distance between a vape shop and school is not enough. Children are going to skip class to walk 1,000 feet to get their vapes and then go back to class. But they won’t walk 2 miles to the vape shop and then go back to class. Make it harder for children because we know these business owners are only making money. They are not always carding these kids.

UDO adoption

  • Please move forward with the adoption of the UDO swiftly. Three years is sufficient time to get the job completed.

Items removed from UDO

  • Thank you for removing the limitations on farm animals and electric fences.

 




Page last updated on:  October 16, 2026