Brunswick commissioners weigh stronger flood rules and a costly stormwater utility

County staff presented options for tightening Brunswick County—s floodplain and stormwater rules and outlined the legal limits that could constrain changes.

Neil (county staff) told the Board that the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance — originally adopted in 1986 — enables residents— participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and underpins eligibility for federal disaster grants. He described possible amendments including raising riparian buffers from 30 to 50 feet, keeping wetlands buffers intact, relocating stormwater ponds outside flood-buffer areas, and increasing design storms from the current 1-, 10- and 25-year standards to a 100-year, 24-hour sizing standard.

Bridget Flora, stormwater staff, said the proposed changes would "reduce the impact of upland sources of nutrients, sediments and other chemicals" and that many developers already build to higher standards voluntarily. She explained the technical trade-offs: "Moving from a 2-foot freeboard to a 4-foot freeboard doubles entry steps and raises accessibility concerns," and added that the county must still meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements if structures are altered.

But legal constraints were front and center. Staff warned that Senate Bill 382 (referred to in the meeting transcript as "SB 382") could create nonconformity issues and limit the county—s ability to downzone or impose retroactive restrictions. "We have been urged to tread lightly," Neil said, citing advice from the School of Government and county legal counsel.

Commissioners pressed staff for specifics: how many structures would become nonconforming, where responsibility for clogged roadside ditches lies (the Department of Transportation in many cases), and how changes would affect existing homeowners and handicap access. Staff said there are approximately 28,457 structures countywide inside mapped flood zones (tax data as of 2020), with roughly 25,000 structures over 600 square feet that could be affected by ordinance changes.

Beyond ordinance text, staff floated a countywide stormwater utility — funded by a fee on properties — to pay for systemwide mitigation projects in existing neighborhoods. Neil said a utility would be "extremely expensive" and recommended a feasibility study to define costs and possible fee structures. Several commissioners asked staff to return with feasibility study cost estimates, examples from comparable jurisdictions, and a legal analysis of what Senate Bill 382 would and would not allow.

What happens next: staff will include floodplain and UDO updates on the Aug. 4 agenda and provide a follow-up with more concrete draft language, feasibility study cost estimates, and legal input so commissioners can decide whether to move forward with ordinance amendments or a utility study.