Brunswick County, North Carolina, is navigating a challenging landscape in its effort to modernize its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a comprehensive set of regulations for land use and development that dates back to 2007. During a recent meeting on August 4, county commissioners reviewed the status of the project, which has been significantly impacted by new state legislation.
The modernization process, initiated by the Board of Commissioners in early 2024, aims to update a document that has seen only one full revision since 2015. Local residents have raised concerns about ongoing development across the county, prompting the need for this comprehensive update. To assist with this project, Brunswick County enlisted the help of N-Focus, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in land-use regulation.
Originally projected to take 12 to 18 months, the timeline for the UDO update has been hampered by North Carolina’s Senate Bill 382, enacted late last year. This legislation imposes restrictions on local governments, particularly preventing any changes that could lead to nonconformities in zoning or land use. Michael Harvey, vice president of N-Focus, informed the commissioners that such restrictions could complicate their modernization efforts.
“Downzoning property isn’t merely about changing zoning designations,” Harvey explained. He noted that alterations that would require property owners’ permissions, such as increasing buffer requirements, could lead to nonconformities inconsistent with current state law. Despite efforts to introduce bills that would repeal these restrictive provisions, no proposals have successfully passed the General Assembly.
Chair Mike Forte emphasized the pressing need for legislative action on these downzoning issues, which he hopes will come in the fall. The anticipated completion date for the final draft of the updated UDO has been pushed back from May or June due to the necessity of aligning changes with new state regulations. Harvey expressed his commitment to ensuring that taxpayer funds are responsibly allocated and not wasted on work that may need to be redone if state laws change.
The updated UDO will include revisions to several articles and will introduce new regulations addressing floodplains, stormwater management, and land use nonconformities. A primary goal, according to Harvey, is to align the UDO with the Brunswick Blueprint 2040 Plan, which serves as the county’s framework for future land use.
Additionally, the updates will streamline the application review process for subdivision and planned development projects. Proposed changes include increasing the stormwater design standard to account for a 100-year storm event and mandating that new developments allocate 30% of their area as open space. However, Harvey acknowledged that a proposed tree protection ordinance would not be included due to the requirement for legislative approval.
The planning board, comprised of appointed members, currently holds the authority to approve major developments. Commissioner Pat Sykes expressed her belief that elected officials should have the final say on these significant projects, a sentiment that Harvey confirmed is permissible under existing law but has not been the path desired by some county officials.
Sykes has requested a review of the current processes governing rezoning and development applications, making a motion that the county staff outline both the present framework and potential adjustments. This motion received majority support from the board.
Harvey reassured the commissioners that they are nearing completion of the draft update and are preparing for further community outreach before it is presented to the planning board. Although the process has faced delays, Harvey remains optimistic about developing options that comply with the new state laws.
The commissioners thanked N-Focus and their staff for their ongoing efforts but expressed exasperation over the obstacles presented by Senate Bill 382. Commissioner Randy Thompson proposed drafting a letter to local legislators outlining the difficulties posed by the legislation, urging for a reconsideration to help facilitate necessary changes in the UDO.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.