[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6161901,"mediaKeyId","5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214","parentId",5440500,"title","County staff previews Unified Development Ordinance progress; Kimley‑Horn to present early August","audioSeconds",279,"startMs",5114595,"endMs",5393955,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214&start=5114&end=5393","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214/thumbnail_5114595.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6161901/Johnston-County/North-Carolina/County-staff-previews-Unified-Development-Ordinance-progress-KimleyHorn-to-present-early-August","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161901-af92a63d16d9a88911b2f4adc073660c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139072&Signature=odEnhOEAGbz8bgS7N3cR9~vi3WTh1a-v0SY6IOlTGAERG0Naq~cmmfji78EthSXkg5HE6usII0TuMLKv3QNnyaCs7Z26DUOLRBYGMnuS~HPVN7HA310enKLcVvmX-P2eTeae5x0eAKrw4nYPkFPcwAzUV16QwMwWpteBFy51~y6oKaCs4---fD3AYj5A2t2cM9PLdGlWaJeaWE4vmRdj69B0NUuQJdUxsxToLY08OwtRZvV5IcXI7umWGfKXa6ldFETnygw7-ZsV9SFoCbkvGhuCx3A1ExESnJz12npCybhIATaBldTxW1tnMMYvMi0GLpQxCL~z3IM6fyduozjfgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Johnston County, NC","date","2025-07-22T19:57:54.957Z","article","Johnston County planning staff on July 21 said drafting of the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is advancing and that consultant Kimley‑Horn will return to the board in early August to present detailed sections. Staff said several chapters are in second or third review and that the team expects to post draft material for public review in the coming weeks.

Mr. Newton, a county planning staff member, told commissioners the consultant and staff meet biweekly and that public outreach in June included seven meetings, one in each commission district. “We feel good about the product we’ve received and about the content,” Newton said. He said staff expects a full draft of sections to be available to the board and the public over the next month and that final presentations to the board would follow the internal review cycle.

Newton also explained a procedural step tied to recent state law: because legislation now limits local government‑initiated down‑zonings, staff is preparing what they called “paper districts” — zoning designations that would be in the ordinance but not applied to parcels until state provisions allow government‑initiated map changes or owners request rezoning. Newton said the paper districts are intended to preserve the county’s ability to implement the adopted land‑use plan if legislative restrictions are later removed.

Staff said Kimley‑Horn will bring compiled draft chapters to a board meeting in early August (staff and the consultant referenced Aug. 4 as a likely date for a presentation), with more detailed ordinance sections and public review expected in September. Planning staff asked the board and the public to review materials once posted and to continue providing feedback through the adoption process.

No formal action on the UDO was taken at the July 21 meeting; staff described the update as procedural and sought direction only if the board wished to alter timing or outreach plans.

Because the UDO will implement zoning and development standards, staff said they are conducting statutory reviews to ensure alignment with North Carolina general statutes and will continue cross‑checks during subsequent drafts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 21, 2025- 6:00 pm: Johnston County Board of Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Johnston County planning staff on July 21 said drafting of the Unified Development Ordinance is advancing, with multiple chapters in second/third review and consultant Kimley‑Horn scheduled to present draft sections in early August.","taxTitle","Johnston County, North Carolina","taxId",14192,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6161911,"County narrows water‑supply options; financial model and Local Government Commission review next",169,1749590,1919025,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214&start=1749&end=1919","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214/thumbnail_1749590.jpg","/articles/6161911/Johnston-County/North-Carolina/County-narrows-watersupply-options-financial-model-and-Local-Government-Commission-review-next","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161911-3f7c662d1ec56dd840741b68ab751d43/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139072&Signature=EFSiMYQLEL5mXJhhRI0dKMz4yimGFFWu-w0vqQbl5l8mQNJSrZ5qWXYTPrJpxUu~ZzSp9~mybBvJ9G-fiy59-BgM7B73jkIU75CnVjyC-L1Bj1yOjtgTq7lFb183V7wdyCcpMfQ02cXhRDVP3Mn1tPHV-EDA79LmrhvNTUMFOKm-kKnLKG1AypfqW6eH~P7FoTUVtayY-TDjmNK0ZkC-Fj8gBeZCkK8fy76Ye3cALftLQ6h6Iriq9GJHLpk0KyegIF-nK5gcgRCDoHytCoIjMkGs~GprtwdiqItkMCOjiz88XmdO2GPsInRv-PqMaMAJ7W3oXDizvU811WuZdGnFAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Johnston County commissioners on July 21 received an update on the county’s water‑supply options study and were told staff and consultants will complete a coordinated financial model with the Town of Clayton and seek Local Government Commission (LGC) concurrence before advancing the long‑term project.

Project staff said the long‑term solution (a new treatment plant and transmission infrastructure drawing from the Cape Fear basin) remains part of the county’s plan, but interim purchases of treated capacity from nearby utilities would reduce near‑term rate impacts while staff finalizes governance and finance arrangements with Clayton and other partners.

JD Solman, the county’s project lead on the water study, said affordability is the central objective. “Affordability is really what we’re trying to drive at,” Solman said, and he told commissioners the planning team has refined options since the last briefing. Solman said the project cost used in the current model has risen from prior estimates to $770,000,000 and that staff are modeling alternatives that would bridge capacity from 2033 to the long‑term project timeline.

Among the intermediate options discussed were purchases of treated water capacity from Raleigh (the team is modeling purchases on two corridors into Clayton, including a possible Pool Road route that would provide a larger transmission asset), additional purchases from Wilson, and purchases or coordination with Harnett County and Dunn. Solman said recent state legislation affecting inter‑basin transfers (IBTs) has changed some constraints and opened additional options compared with earlier work.

Staff reported a mix of current wholesale purchases across the county: existing capacity purchases include agreements with Raleigh, Wilson and Harnett (staff noted variability in existing allocations and some overlapping service areas). Solman said the county is considering acquiring up to 6 million gallons per day (MGD) of wholesale capacity from Raleigh as an intermediate measure; the team will model how different purchase amounts affect capital costs and customer rates.

Commissioners asked about governance and regionalization. “I just wonder what we ought to be doing stronger to push towards that regionalization,” said Commissioner Nagano, noting the county’s long‑term interest in keeping Cape Fear basin water in the Cape Fear system. Solman and staff said the county needs a focused governance plan to coordinate multiple partners and to explain the financing and risk allocation to LGC reviewers.

Staff said the immediate next steps are to complete a reconciled financial model with Clayton and to present modeled scenarios to commissioners and to the LGC. Solman said Davenport (financial advisor) and other consultants are refining assumptions — discount rates, payback periods and final project cost inputs — and that the work with Clayton’s financial team would continue in follow‑up meetings scheduled the week after the briefing.

No formal board vote was taken. Commissioners and staff emphasized the need to balance affordability, timing and regional partners in the months ahead and asked for clear rate projections and the LGC narrative that will show how different scenarios affect customer bills and needed financing.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the July 21 meeting transcript and are listed in the speaker section below.","Johnston County commissioners on July 21 received an update on the county’s water‑supply options study and were told staff and consultants will complete a coordinated financial model with the Town of Clayton and seek Local Government Commission concurrence before advancing the long‑term project.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6161916,"Johnston County reviews master site plan; staff to bring DSS design and infrastructure proposals Aug. 4",429,158690,588140,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214&start=158&end=588","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214/thumbnail_158690.jpg","/articles/6161916/Johnston-County/North-Carolina/Johnston-County-reviews-master-site-plan-staff-to-bring-DSS-design-and-infrastructure-proposals-Aug-4","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161916-772cf36f3ff29d9820405847f37822e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139072&Signature=SceRHVlmRcOWxJwjF8wer4ystaVlTckB4b7nk0MG5-lMv3j8MBKDBvTebrpdpeFMm5KbkNrLy~ApL5~umIPfBVRcA0ayYzMUNPxEuwG9VnYUFBVrOwEI-EwXUHGgFA0DLzLAtnSo3uJri~GDvFXGnnSTF~HR4wKZ9Xi6bn1bBhj3bdjOlfTaJW3eyG~lrg4aUqPjFqBMz9AiEZ7h1FO4sIdyvlldmzCqVUIQfWCAjWw-AbTqB9at9EXOoJGdIiZg3twV8-zPSzkReopbNMFLDJ~TSxq1D7xzuU4MFxnTxqLoqDtDbW54-gRBDzqwM4Y8EvDfuR8qd5C3AmXW9MgLTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Johnston County commissioners on July 21 reviewed a preferred master plan for a consolidated county campus and a proposal to design on‑ and off‑site infrastructure plus a new Department of Social Services (DSS) building, with staff saying formal design proposals will be brought to the board at its Aug. 4 meeting.

The plan, presented by Josh Bennett of Moseley, identifies a tightened development footprint east of Yelverton Road, two aligned vehicle boulevards that emphasize the Administration Building, a pedestrian spine linking buildings and phased parking and utility work. Bennett said the presentation focused on a preferred option (Option 4) that emphasizes future flexibility including third‑floor shells and long‑term parking decks.

The plan matters because county leaders said it addresses current space shortages across departments, offers a phased approach intended to limit short‑term borrowing, and provides cost and escalation models to inform decisions about timing and procurement.

Bennett told commissioners, “We wanted to create an environment that was safe, efficient, that we were forward looking in a place that was beautiful,” and said the firm provided a five‑year budget snapshot pulled from a 20‑year capital model. He said the model uses a 3.5 percent escalation rate and that the cost figures shown include contingency, design, furniture and other “soft” costs as well as construction.

The presentation described the design intent: two primary axes providing prominent access to the Administration Building; colocated DSS, Health Department and Land Use buildings; parking arranged for staff and the public; and a pedestrian spine to reduce walking distances on campus. Bennett said the third‑floor shells shown are permitted under the Town of Smithfield zoning and that adding shells now would be “the cheapest time to do that” rather than returning to add space later.

Commissioners asked technical questions about access alignment, utilities and phasing. “Is it line up with the 9‑1‑1 communications or is it … offset?” asked Commissioner Stovall, seeking clarification about how new entrances would relate to emergency‑services access; Bennett said current alignments are offset and could change during design. Staff said crossing and wetland disturbance details for rear access had not yet been designed.

On procurement, county staff recommended prequalification followed by design‑bid‑build for the on‑site/off‑site improvements and the DSS building, with the two work packages kept separate. A staff member said third‑party independent cost estimating would be used at design milestones and that the board would be able to pause between phases to reassess scope and cost. The presenter added that if the board approves moving forward at the Aug. 4 meeting staff would also seek a reimbursement resolution to allow the county to front design fees and later include them in financing.

No formal vote was taken on construction; commissioners expressed general support for the plan and for returning to the board with the design and procurement documents. Staff said they will present formal proposals and contract documents at the Aug. 4 meeting for the board to approve, modify or decline.

Background/next steps: Bennett and Moseley provided a draft phasing approach that would begin with bringing utilities to the site and constructing the DSS building to relieve current space constraints. Commissioners emphasized the county’s current shortage of space across court, health and social‑services functions and asked staff to manage sequencing and cost control tightly. If the board directs staff to proceed at the Aug. 4 meeting, county staff said they plan to prequalify bidders, use independent cost estimating at key design phases and bring procurement documents back for formal action.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the July 21 meeting; all direct quotes are attributed to speakers listed in the article’s speaker list.","County commissioners reviewed a preferred master-plan option for a consolidated county campus and a proposal to design on- and off-site infrastructure and a new Department of Social Services building. Staff will return Aug. 4 with formal design and procurement documents if the board wants to proceed.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6161906,"Draft comprehensive transportation plan proposes 170 miles of roadway recommendations and right‑of‑way dedication policy",1190,3574980,4765970,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214&start=3574&end=4765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440500-2afce94955df5ba399e1351c09170214/thumbnail_3574980.jpg","/articles/6161906/Johnston-County/North-Carolina/Draft-comprehensive-transportation-plan-proposes-170-miles-of-roadway-recommendations-and-rightofway-dedication-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161906-0f6f0ab67700a02531ca6a1e64ee4dee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139072&Signature=ZZrvBT3M6tZnujaNKdDH-FrAG~nergqNZOGcgwuTiiJc2TAIcC5puNzmR1e8U15a4tGOePWs2867dGQo-72bUXgxTeiH97-1b7yQzfVNynUdtEB0gZEL-dOv5~PBz0YatX2Ste0JNM5EQI98hWMBLM2LK6pcevRyWVjdRcIlMAXvQCEokx0hq0-PxPaf7CfaoXB~gbda7hruODJImRztMfXAtxaDUCDdUeb0pbhOVSKHWA~0q68WecPieCFBH9zHAOdEt1dwqtQXPMmTn~CCK1T3-DUiNpkDqCBUl8yKmWL1N-JnJ6umMCsiztKRpry4wBk1x6JYDztI379~FYX7zA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Johnston County’s draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) was presented to commissioners on July 21 by Will Lechworth of McAdams. The plan recommends 170 miles of roadway improvements, roughly 88 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, targeted intersection safety upgrades and a new policy approach asking developers to dedicate half of future roadway right‑of‑way along project frontages when a development or rezoning creates new construction.

Lechworth said the project team had engaged more than 1,000 residents via three rounds of public meetings and an online survey and that the draft has been shared with county planning staff. He said the plan is deliberately more multimodal than the previous 11‑year‑old plan and is intended to align with recent land‑use work and regional studies such as NCDOT STIP and Campo’s Southeast Area Study.

“We’ve actually delivered a draft of the study to planning department staff,” Lechworth said, noting the plan’s digital, interactive map that will let developers and residents click recommendations and view linked cross sections and dimensional guidance.

A significant change recommended in the draft is an ordinance practice that would require dedication — or reservation in selected cases — of half the recommended roadway right‑of‑way when development occurs on a frontage. Lechworth explained that dedication means conveying the land to the county or NCDOT so future widening is less expensive and less disruptive; reservation means laying out development so the right‑of‑way can be acquired later without major impacts to the adjacent development.

Commissioners and staff discussed typical dimensions and maintenance responsibilities: Lechworth said many subdivision streets have 50‑foot rights‑of‑way, two‑lane NC routes are often 60 feet, and a multi‑use greenway recommendation would typically be a 12–14‑foot path within a smaller dedicated corridor. He added the plan contains only about eight miles of new‑location roadways; most recommendations are widening, safety and multimodal connections.

Schedule and next steps presented to the board call for a formal presentation to commissioners on Aug. 18, review by the planning board on Aug. 19 and a public hearing and adoption on Sept. 2, subject to coordination with the Upper Coastal Plain RPO and Campo. Staff and McAdams said they can adjust the schedule to accommodate additional regional review.

No board vote was taken; commissioners were asked to provide feedback and staff will post the draft plan and the interactive mapping tool for public review. The draft is intended to give the county a current, digital tool to support grant applications and to improve alignment with regional transportation priorities.

The plan presentation and the proposed right‑of‑way policy aim to reduce future project costs by securing corridor availability now and to streamline project delivery with clearer guidance for developers and NCDOT.","McAdams and county staff presented a draft countywide transportation plan July 21 that recommends 170 miles of roadway improvements, 88 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, an interactive digital map and a developer policy to dedicate half of recommended roadway right‑of‑way at the time of development.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County staff previews Unified Development Ordinance progress; Kimley‑Horn to present early August

County narrows water‑supply options; financial model and Local Government Commission review next

Johnston County reviews master site plan; staff to bring DSS design and infrastructure proposals Aug. 4

Draft comprehensive transportation plan proposes 170 miles of roadway recommendations and right‑of‑way dedication policy