Commissioners hear heated public concerns over proposed mass-gathering ordinance lowering threshold to 2,500

The Johnston County Board of Commissioners opened a public hearing Aug. 3 on proposed amendments to the county's mass-gathering ordinance aimed at updating a rule last revised in 1987.

Deputy County Attorney Miss Coates told the board the revisions are intended to protect public health and safety and to align county practice with contemporary event planning and public-health regulations. She described key changes that staff recommends: lowering the county threshold from 4,000 to 2,500 attendees for certain outdoor gatherings, excluding permanent buildings and stadiums, and lengthening the application window from a 30-day minimum to a 90- to 180-day planning window so agencies can coordinate in advance.

The hearing drew multiple speakers who questioned the chosen numbers and possible consequences for farms, agritourism and small-event organizers. Eddie Rowe of Princeton told commissioners he opposed the change and asked the board to delay adoption until an independent legal analysis and impact study were produced. "If you lower that threshold of 2,500 people, that's gonna pretty much cap us all," Rowe said, arguing the county's 1,500-foot setback requirement and a lower attendance threshold would make many rural venues infeasible.

Public-safety perspectives were mixed. Raven Carter, who described 15 years of experience in 911/EMS/fire and police, said preparedness needs do not neatly track a single attendance number and urged clearer standards rather than broad discretion: "Why 2,500?" she asked, adding that larger planning windows may be excessive for many community events.

Staff and commissioners exchanged detailed questions about enforcement, fees and how the county and state statutes would interact for very large events. Coates clarified that state law governs gatherings of 5,000 or more and that the county's amendment would apply in the 2,500-to-4,999 range. She said the intent is to require advance coordination with emergency services so resources can be staged, permitting processes clarified and public safety assured.

The hearing included technical questions about whether parking or off-site lots would count in a permit perimeter and whether a single neighbor's refusal to sign a prescribed waiver could block an event; staff said perimeter is measured from the activity footprint and that waivers and other exceptions are already in the ordinance.

Chair closed the hearing after extended public comment and the board took the proposed amendment under advisement for additional review and possible revision. No formal vote on the ordinance was taken at the Aug. 3 meeting.