The Brunswick County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 gave staff direction to revise the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to clarify review processes for text amendments, rezonings, conditional zoning, site plans and subdivisions, and to treat plan developments as conditional-zoning requests.

Michael Harvey, the county’s UDO consultant with Infocus, presented multiple alternative workflow options for how zoning map amendments, conditional rezoning, site-plan review and subdivision reviews could be processed under state law and pending state-level changes. He recommended streamlining some site-plan and subdivision reviews for staff action — because those reviews are primarily binary compliance checks against the ordinance — while preserving the planning board’s role in review and recommendation for discretionary rezoning and conditional projects.

After discussion, commissioners agreed they wanted the planning board to continue making decisions that are appealable to the board of commissioners, rather than shifting final decision authority to the commissioners for routine rezonings. The board directed staff and the consultant to prepare a draft UDO that: (1) keeps text amendments and conventional rezoning review largely as-is (planning board hearing with appeal to the commissioners); (2) treats large "plan development" projects as conditional-zone or conditional-zoning requests tied to negotiated conditions; and (3) routes site plans and subdivisions of fewer than 100 lots to staff for approval with appeal routes to the board of adjustment and superior court, in keeping with recent and pending changes to state law.

Harvey told the board the proposed approach would likely increase staff workload “somewhat” and could add roughly 30–45 days to some conditional-zoning review timelines because of duplicated review steps at the planning board and the board of commissioners. County staff confirmed the changes would likely require at least one additional staff position or reallocation of duties to handle the increased review burden.

The board approved a motion directing staff to finalise ordinance language consistent with the recommendations, and asked that each commissioner be provided a draft copy for review before the board receives the final ordinance for adoption. County attorney and staff indicated the proposed changes were legally permissible; Harvey reminded the board that a pending slate of state bills could also affect review authority and that the recommended UDO would make the county’s code consistent with the most likely state changes.

Ending: Staff and the consultant will return with the drafted ordinance language, and commissioners requested an individual review opportunity before formal adoption.