Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County gets UDO update; commissioners press consultants on District 3 density and overlays
Summary
Consultants presented a draft approach to a Unified Development Ordinance and outreach plan; commissioners, led by District 3 representative, pressed for options to prevent new multifamily development in parts of the county and asked that consultants prioritize those concerns in drafting.
Consultants working on Newton County’s Unified Development Ordinance told the county’s Board of Commissioners during a work session that they will begin drafting ordinance text in two modules and that public outreach and staff interviews completed last fall are guiding their recommended changes.
The update, delivered by consultant Brian Mabry and consultant Rachel Booth and introduced by county planning staff Shaina Applewhite, reviewed the UDO’s purpose, a proposed chapter structure, and possible changes including consolidation of zoning and subdivision rules, clearer use tables, administrative adjustments for small technical deviations, and design standards to preserve the county’s “small-town character.” Brian Mabry said, “The Unified Development Ordinance is the primary regulatory tool that the county has … to implement their comprehensive plan,” and described the project goal of making regulations predictable for applicants and neighbors.
Why it matters: the UDO will translate Newton County’s comprehensive plan into enforceable rules for zoning, permitted uses, building envelopes, parking, tree preservation and review procedures. Changes to densities, overlays or notice thresholds could directly affect what kinds of housing and development are allowed in Commissioner districts.
Commissioners focused much of the discussion on District 3, where residents and several commissioners have raised concerns about what they described as rapid growth and multifamily development. Commissioner Lindsey, who represents District 3, asked specifically whether the consultants would consider “a super overlay” or other measures that would prohibit multifamily housing in targeted areas. Lindsey asked, “Is it permissible to have a particular area where there's absolutely no multifamily housing at all?” Mabry replied that an overlay could be drafted to prohibit multifamily uses or lower permitted density in a defined area and that the consultants would weigh commission input alongside the comprehensive plan and staff feedback.
Several commissioners emphasized balance between protecting existing community character and managing growth countywide. Commissioner Lohner and Commissioner Mason said they want the UDO to reflect local preferences rather than be overly generic, and to allow “smart growth” in places where it is appropriate while preserving lower-density character elsewhere.
What consultants described: Mabry outlined topics the draft UDO will address, including a consolidated use table; clearer definitions; housing examples such as accessory dwelling units, cottage courts and micromanufacturing-friendly rules; enhanced nonresidential design standards; revised public-notice thresholds; and procedural changes such as an administrative adjustment process to allow small, clearly defined deviations without a public hearing. Mabry said the ordinance will be drafted in two modules: (1) zoning districts and uses, and (2) development and subdivision standards plus review procedures. He noted prior outreach in September that included staff, business owners, design professionals, realtors and residents, and said a public open house was scheduled for the following evening.
Clarifications and staff priorities raised in the meeting included maintaining predictability for neighbors, avoiding internal inconsistencies in the code, preserving tree canopy and open space within developments, and creating a user-friendly document with graphics and tables. Mabry also suggested renaming some residential districts to be more descriptive (for example, using terms such as “Suburban Residential” rather than R-1/R-2 labels).
Directives and next steps: consultants said they will draft the UDO in the two modules described, continue outreach (including an open house), and work with planning staff to incorporate commissioner feedback. Chairman Cooper urged the consultants to meet individually with commissioners to gather detailed input before the first draft is returned to the board.
No formal votes were taken during the session; the meeting was an informational work session and discussion. The consultants and staff repeatedly framed remaining work as balancing competing inputs — the comprehensive plan, staff implementability, and commissioner and public preferences — and said they would reflect that balance in the draft ordinance text.
