Johnston County delays vote on Prologis industrial rezoning after hours of neighborhood opposition
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board took under advisement a request by Prologis to rezone about 28 acres near Pierce and Cleveland roads (case 25‑15) after extensive public comment. Residents raised traffic, safety, buffer and environmental concerns and asked the board for stricter conditions or denial; the board voted to table the case to March 16 for further review.
The Johnston County Board of Commissioners took case 25‑15 — a proposal by Prologis to rezone 28.038 acres at Pierce Road and Cleveland Road to an Interstate Highway Interchange conditional zoning district for heavy industrial uses — under advisement and tabled the matter to the March 16 meeting after several hours of public comment and commissioner deliberation.
Planning director Braston Newton said the property is designated in the county plan as a regional mixed‑use center and noted that a small portion of the tract is already in the Interstate Highway Interchange overlay. Applicant representatives Jason Baron (Morning Star Law Group) and Grant Benson (Prologis) described the project as a two‑building logistics/flex development, emphasized existing riparian buffers on the site, and said Prologis would construct and (if accepted) dedicate an extension of Masonborough Drive to DOT standards at the applicant’s expense.
"This is the right use in the right location," Grant Benson said, noting prior similar rezoning conditions in the area and the company’s local experience. He and counsel Jason Baron said the development would generate jobs and add property tax revenue (applicant estimated roughly $240,000/year).
Traffic and safety were focal points for commissioners and residents. The applicant's traffic study estimated about 236 daily trips for the proposed use; the applicant’s traffic engineer later described about 119 daily truck trips split between the two buildings, and said peak‑hour truck counts would be low. Neighbors disputed assumptions and asked for an independent, non‑proprietary traffic impact analysis, additional turn lanes, and restrictions to keep tractor‑trailers off narrow local roads.
Many residents — including speakers representing Sherrill Place Village and Cheryl Place Village — urged denial or significantly tougher conditions. Cassandra Sakata, a community board member, urged stricter prohibitions and said she was concerned the warehouse shells could later convert to data centers; she pointed to national coverage of Prologis investments as background for her request that the county explicitly prohibit data centers, battery energy storage systems and other high‑intensity uses on the site.
Applicant counsel said he had not previously heard data‑center concerns during this local process and that Prologis would accept a condition prohibiting data centers at this site. "This is not a data center case ... we would be fine with offering a condition that would prohibit data centers on this site," Jason Baron told the board.
After extended discussion about the scope of permitted uses, traffic, buffers and whether to deny or condition the rezoning, a motion to find the rezoning not in the public interest failed on a voice/hand count. Commissioners then voted to table the matter and directed staff to continue reviewing the applicant’s proposed use list, traffic impacts and potential additional conditions. The hearing will resume on March 16 at 6:00 p.m.