Johnston County commissioners deny rezoning request for parcel on N.C. Highway 210

The Johnston County Board of Commissioners voted 5-2 to deny a request to rezone a 0.95-acre parcel at 10790 N.C. Highway 210 in Elevation Township from Community Business (CB) to I-1 (light industrial).

Planning Director Branson Newton told the board the petition, labeled case 25-03, would change the zoning of a 0.95-acre parcel that adjoins an existing 2.5-acre I-1 parcel used by North Carolina Glazing and Fabrication. Newton said the stretch of Highway 210 carries about 10,000 vehicles per day based on a 2023 count and that the county's Envision Johnston comprehensive land use plan designates the site as a low-density residential place type.

The applicant’s representative, Brian Leonard of BRL Engineering and Surveying, described the request as a logical consolidation of two adjacent parcels used by the same commercial glass business and said the company’s planned expansion would provide a new office and indoor storage, not new production space. Owner Adam Barefoot said the business generally operates “8 to 5 most times. Sometimes it’s 6 to 6, 6 days a week,” and that the change would allow outdoor materials now stored on site to move indoors.

The county planning board recommended approval. County staff recommended against the rezoning, citing inconsistency with the county’s land use plan.

Board members spent extended time debating whether to grant a straight (general use) rezoning or require a conditional rezoning that would limit future permitted uses. Commissioners in favor of denial stressed the importance of consistency with the Envision Johnston plan and said conditional zoning would give the county more direct control over future uses if ownership changed. Commissioners who supported the straight rezoning emphasized the lot’s existing industrial neighbor and the longstanding presence of the glazing business.

Chairman (name not provided) opened the vote after motions on the floor. The first motion—to approve the straight rezoning and adopt the consistency statement as presented—failed. A subsequent motion to deny the rezoning, framed as the use being “not in the public interest” and “not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan,” passed 5 to 2.

The board’s attorney clarified that denial tonight would not bar the applicant from filing a separate conditional rezoning application and that, if the owner pursues conditional zoning, the application would go back to the planning board and then to the commissioners for consideration. The applicant indicated awareness of that pathway.

What the board decided and why: Commissioners who voted to deny said they were attempting to follow the county’s adopted land use plan and to limit open-ended land-use permissions that would remain with the property if rezoned. Commissioners who voted against denial said the property’s current operations and the adjacent I-1 parcel made the straight rezoning reasonable for this unique site.

Next steps: The denial stops the straight rezoning request as presented. The applicant may submit a new application for conditional zoning, which would include a concept site plan and come before the planning board and then the Board of Commissioners.

Votes at a glance: Denial of rezoning request (case 25-03) — vote: 5 in favor of denial, 2 opposed; action: denial approved (motion: "adopt the statement of consistency resolution that the use is not in the public interest and further that it is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan").