Commissioners approve conditional rezoning for 12.56-acre Pierce Road site with use limits and buffers

The Johnston County Board of Commissioners approved a conditional rezoning for 12.56 acres on Pierce Road near Cleveland Road (Case 25‑06) at its evening meeting, allowing a multi‑tenant light industrial/flex development under conditions agreed between the applicant and county staff.

County planning staff told commissioners the property, currently zoned agricultural/residential and undeveloped, is designated in the county's land use plan as a regional mixed‑use center and lies partially within an Interstate Highway Interchange overlay. Bratz Newton, county planning staff, said the applicant's revised filing excludes a number of heavy industrial uses and that conditional zoning would make allowed uses site‑specific and subject to the submitted site plan and attached conditions.

Developer attorney Tom Johnson, representing Greystar and the applicant, said the project team doubled the number of excluded uses after planning‑board comments and hired McAdams to conduct a targeted traffic analysis even though a formal traffic impact analysis was not required. "We made significant changes to the number of uses that were excluded," Johnson said, and described the proposal as a flex industrial development designed for smaller 20,000–40,000 square‑foot tenants and light commercial service uses.

McAdams traffic lead Nate Boclan told the board that the study estimated roughly 562 daily trips for the proposed development, with about 34 truck trips over the course of a day (not 34 individual trucks). Boclan said most service trucks would likely use nearby I‑40 interchanges rather than travel west on Pierce Road, and that modeled peak‑hour delays increased by only about one to three seconds at nearby intersections. "We did find a very negligible increase in delay," Boclan said.

Residents raised safety and traffic concerns at the public hearing. Kene Cutchen, a Pierce Road resident, said the local road "is just not meant for the type of traffic" a business park brings and questioned whether the study reflected real‑world patterns, including truck routing to new 540 connections. The applicant responded that utilities are available but that sewer allocation would not be triggered until permits and plans are approved, and that stormwater would be retained and treated on site.

Commissioners and staff discussed buffers and landscaping. The applicant described an existing 18‑acre homeowners association tract and natural wetlands between the site and nearby residences and agreed to a minimum 40‑foot setback from Pierce Road with a Type C landscaping buffer and preservation of existing vegetation to reduce noise, light and visibility impacts.

The board discussed a long table of permitted and excluded uses. Commissioners asked the applicant to clarify and further restrict certain uses (examples discussed included mining/quarrying, heavy manufacturing, roofing material manufacturing and some chemical processing). County staff summarized agreed language at the meeting limiting manufacturing and processing at scale while permitting smaller‑scale assembly, distribution and repair uses where appropriate; the applicant accepted those limitations in principle pending final drafting.

Planning staff had provided a statement of consistency recommending approval; the Planning Board's prior recommendation was denial based on an earlier version of the application. After discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt a resolution finding the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan and to approve the conditional rezoning with the conditions discussed; the motion carried.

Next steps: staff will prepare final wording of the approved conditions and the applicant will sign the conditional‑zoning agreement before development proceeds. The board did not specify a final numerical vote tally in the public record at the time the motion was announced.