Newton County gets update on draft Unified Development Ordinance; consultants outline modules, timeline and options

Consultants and county staff presented a progress update on the draft Unified Development Ordinance to the Newton County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission on Oct. 7, 2025, outlining the work done on “Module 1” and the schedule for public review and formal hearings early next year.

The update, delivered by Brian Mabry of Kinney Keys Collaborative and facilitated by county staff member Shana, covered three chapters in Module 1: general provisions, zoning districts and land‑use standards. Mabry said the work is “very much a work in progress” and described the draft as a high‑level overview rather than a public hearing draft.

The draft’s Module 1 sets out legal and measurement rules (how to measure building height, setbacks and lot widths), transitional provisions for pending applications, exceptions for minor encroachments (for example, steeples or bay windows), and a zoning district matrix that expands some residential district options. Mabry described an expanded “menu” of amenity types as alternatives to conventional open space — plazas, community gardens, greenways and recreational areas — and three optional residential development types that could be applied in certain districts: conventional, conservation and tiny‑home/cottage communities. He also said a Module 2 package, coming later, will address design standards, subdivision rules, procedures and nonconformities.

Why it matters: the UDO will replace parcel‑level development regulations that govern future subdivisions, site plans and land uses in the unincorporated parts of Newton County. Changes to dimensional standards, permitted housing types, and the way amenity/open‑space requirements are calculated can affect density, infrastructure needs and the locality of future development.

Key points from the presentation

- Scope and timeline: Mabry said the project began with stakeholder meetings in July, that Module 1 (general provisions, zoning districts, uses) is in draft form, and that staff expects a public‑hearing draft to be released in January 2026, with Planning Commission hearings tentatively in February and final adoption by the Board of Commissioners in March. He announced an open house the next evening at 6:00 p.m. for additional public input.

- Module contents: Chapter 1 contains jurisdictional/authority language, conflict‑resolution rules (the stricter provision controls, and words override illustrations), transition rules for active applications, and measurement definitions. Chapter 2 contains district purpose statements, dimensional standards (lot area/width, height, density), and an expanded use table with A (allowed), AU (authorized with standards) and CU (conditional use) notations. Land‑use standards described include accessory uses, temporary uses and telecommunication tower rules.

- Development types and incentives: the draft includes optional development types that can be chosen by a developer in qualifying districts. For one hypothetical 10‑acre R‑2 parcel Mabry used as an example, the conventional layout produced roughly 12 units, while a conservation option that sets aside 33% amenity space produced about 15 units — an explicit tradeoff of additional density for protected amenity space.

Questions and public comments

Commissioner Mason stressed the county’s interest in protecting residents: "I want this document to protect citizens and what those citizens as a whole are looking for," Mason said, urging that the UDO reflect local priorities rather than being written primarily for developers.

Commissioner Long said some routine land‑use approvals take too long and asked staff to consider streamlining processes for family conveyances and similar simple transactions. Long noted a specific rezoning case processed during the same meeting took months and said the UDO review should consider procedural speed.

Concerns about rental conversions drew repeated questions from the public and commissioners. A resident asked whether the UDO can require owner‑occupancy; Mabry answered that the UDO typically cannot mandate a percentage of owner‑occupied units, though it can include standards for specific housing types (for example, accessory dwelling units) and can require applicants to meet stated development commitments made during public hearings. Shana clarified that property‑maintenance and nuisance standards are enforced under the county’s code of ordinances and that code enforcement would be responsible for ongoing maintenance violations, not the UDO.

Commissioners and residents also raised questions about conservation set‑asides. Commissioner Mason asked that conservation requirements be limited to usable land and not be satisfied by easements such as narrow power‑line corridors or wetlands that provide little public benefit. Mabry said the draft can be refined to define acceptable amenity types and to add incentives for specific amenity choices if the county prefers.

Public reviewers and civic leaders who spoke during the meeting’s general comment period said the draft, as presented, felt like a repackaging of the existing UDO and urged clearer crosswalks showing where citizen input and the county comprehensive plan were incorporated. Several commenters asked that the online, adopted code be search‑friendly and have a clear table of contents and hover‑over definitions.

Clarifying details from the meeting

- The consultant illustrated tradeoffs: on a hypothetical 10‑acre R‑2 parcel, a conventional subdivision example yielded about 12 units; the conservation development option yielded about 15 units in exchange for a 33% amenity‑space set‑aside.

- Mabry said illustrations in the draft are for explanatory purposes only and that text will control where illustrations and text conflict.

- Mabry noted that build‑to‑rent development types (single‑owner parcels with detached homes operated as rentals) and tiny‑home community standards are not widely used in the county today but could be added to the draft if staff and the public request them.

What’s next

Mabry and county staff said they will continue drafting Module 2 (design, subdivision, procedures, nonconformities) and provide another update in November. Staff plans to post a public hearing draft in January, hold Planning Commission hearings in February and seek final adoption in March. An open house was scheduled the evening after the Oct. 7 meeting at 6 p.m.

Ending

County staff and the consultant emphasized the draft remains changeable. Several commissioners asked for continued, targeted outreach to ensure the document reflects the county’s goals for rural character, usable conservation, and manageable growth. Residents were encouraged to review the draft when it is published and to submit written comments.