Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines unified development ordinance update; commissioners debate timing and authority
Summary
Planning consultant Michael Harvey told Brunswick County commissioners the UDO will consolidate zoning, subdivision and stormwater rules, propose new districts and stronger standards, and that state law changes have forced a pause; commissioners asked staff to return with options if commissioners assume final approval authority on rezonings and planned developments.
Michael Harvey, the consultant leading Brunswick County’s Unified Development Ordinance update, told commissioners the project aims to consolidate land-use regulations into a single, clearer code that implements the county’s 2040 comprehensive plan and complies with state law.
"Our ultimate goal here is to ensure that we are properly implementing your recently adopted comprehensive plan," Harvey said, describing updates that would centralize administrative review, recommend a 30% minimum open-space standard in subdivisions, create a new agricultural conservation district for rural areas, add a commercial overlay on Highway 17 to reduce curb cuts, and establish standards addressing stormwater, signage and noise.
Harvey warned that recent state action on nonconforming uses — a December 2024 change to the nonconforming/downzoning provisions of state law — constrains local options. He said the team paused an adoption timeline originally aimed for May–June 2025 so the UDO won’t create nonconformities that could trigger litigation. "I am not gonna do anything inconsistent with the staff direction from your floodplain administrator," he said, and noted InFocus provides a two-year warranty period to assist with future statutory changes.
Commissioners pressed whether the county could adopt UDO components that would not create nonconformities now and whether the board should reclaim final approval authority from the planning board for subdivisions and planned developments. Commissioner (Speaker 10) proposed sending a letter to state legislators outlining the county’s concerns. Commissioner (Speaker 16) moved that staff return with a clear presentation showing how the current and proposed processes would work and what it would look like if the commissioners assumed final legislative authority; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Why it matters: The UDO will govern zoning, subdivision review and development standards countywide. State law changes about nonconforming uses limit local actions and have delayed adoption; commissioners must decide whether to move forward piecemeal with changes that are legally safe or wait for a state legislative fix.
Next steps: Staff will develop and present options showing the current process, the proposed UDO process and a commissioners-led alternative for legislative approvals; public outreach and focus-group meetings will continue before final drafts go to the planning board and commissioners.
