Brunswick commissioners hear UDO update as residents warn growth and infrastructure lag

Michael Harvey, consultant with Enfocus/InFocus Planning Inc., told the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners the Unified Development Ordinance update is meant to consolidate local land-use rules into a single, modern document that implements the county’s recently adopted comprehensive plan and ensures compliance with state law.

“This project’s ultimate goal here is to ensure that we are properly implementing your recently adopted comprehensive plan,” Harvey said in his presentation. He described the UDO as a “one-stop shop” for zoning, subdivisions, stormwater, flood regulations and other development standards. The draft proposes new districts, an agricultural conservation district for low-density rural areas, a Highway 17 commercial overlay, updated stormwater and floodplain standards, a 30% open-space requirement for subdivisions, and a recommendation that staff review most subdivisions while plan developments and major rezonings would go through a legislative hearing process.

Harvey warned, however, that recent North Carolina General Assembly actions — including a December 2024 change to the nonconforming/downzoning provisions — and several pending bills make some common updates legally risky. He said the team paused the process to avoid producing draft ordinance language that could immediately subject the county to litigation if the state’s downzoning provisions were applied to existing, currently conforming development.

Several residents who spoke during the meeting’s public comment period urged faster UDO changes and said the current approval process has allowed developments to proceed without adequate infrastructure. Gene Vasile, president of the Alliance of Brunswick County Property Owners Associations, cited Articles 2.32 and 3.3 of the current Unified Development Ordinance and said planning board approvals under the present code have allowed construction without ensuring infrastructure is in place. “The county doesn't build roads and complain to the NCDOT isn't a solution. This is a matter of life and death,” Vasile said.

Other speakers — including Michael Gamori of Brick Landing Plantation, Robin Edwardson and Deborah Hester, a native resident — described traffic congestion, stormwater and flooding, and a pace of growth residents called unsustainable. Gamori urged continuation of the UDO revision to address the pace of growth; Edwardson said delays have left a sense of urgency among residents.

Commissioners debated process options. One commissioner moved and the board voted to have staff return with a proposal showing what the review/decision process would look like if commissioners, instead of the planning board, held final legislative hearings on plan developments (that motion passed on a voice vote with at least one dissent recorded). Harvey said his draft, as directed by staff and initial commissioner feedback, currently preserves planning-board authority for legislative approvals unless the board instructs otherwise. He also said Enfocus provides a two-year warranty to assist the county with amendments after adoption.

Harvey recommended several specific changes in the draft: naming residential districts to match state requirements; tying new districts to the 2040 comprehensive plan and to utility availability; raising minimum rights-of-way from 45 to 50 feet to allow future road expansion; updating sign standards, including content-neutral rules and limits on electronic billboard brightness and message change rates; and adopting a 100-year storm design standard for stormwater retention (subject to the county engineering staff’s review). He said some desirable measures — including a proactive tree-protection ordinance and certain stronger freeboard/flood requirements — may be legally constrained under state law.

The board asked staff to return within weeks with (1) the chapters and ordinance language the consultant believes are not implicated by the state downzoning law so the commission can consider moving some items now; and (2) a comparative flowchart showing current review processes versus the proposed process and how the process would change if commissioners assume final legislative authority for rezonings and plan developments. Harvey said the team will continue public outreach, focus-group meetings and planning-board review after staff feedback.

No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked staff and the consultant to refine the draft and return with clearer options for the board to consider.