County commissioners withdraw UDO amendments

The Brunswick County Board of Commissioners during its March 17 regular meeting due largely to a new state law’s restrictions voted to withdraw a set of proposed unified development ordinance amendments (UDO) and refer those amendments back to the county’s consultant to be included in the updated UDO.

County planning staff, in collaboration with consultant N-Focus, is currently in the process of updating the Brunswick County UDO, which sets development standards in county jurisdiction, at the direction of the board of commissioners. The project, which costs $200,000 according to Brunswick County Planning Director Kirstie Dixon, began last year and is expected to be completed sometime this summer.

However, while the UDO update is ongoing, the commissioners in March 2024 voted to have county staff craft several UDO amendments to immediately address certain issues related to tree protection and residential development’s impact on traffic.

Those amendments include: establishing Transportation Overlay Zones (TOZs) along major thoroughfares; requiring traffic impact analyses (TIAs) for projects prior to consideration by the planning board; and a tree and landscape text amendment aimed at immediately enhancing existing regulations by enforcing stricter guidelines for tree preservation, increasing requirements for landscaping and introducing incentives for compliance.

TOZs are intended to ensure lands adjacent to highways in Brunswick County are developed with landscaping or remain in a naturally wooded state to promote the health and welfare of the public by requiring buffers to be either retained or constructed between all new residential and commercial development projects and the applicable highway it sits off of.

The TIA amendment would codify the timing of when a TIA is required, Dixon said. “Per your direction, it’s required prior to a planning board and we just wanted to codify it in the ordinance so there are no questions of when.”

The tree and landscape text amendment is “a series of eight amendments that increase the amount of landscaping and green space required for new development,” Dixon noted. “For example, some of these are increasing open space requirements, increasing the VAD buffer, requiring each new home to have several trees, enhancing landscaping, updating definitions and updating the approved landscaping list.”

From March to December, the planning board discussed the amendments before voting to recommend denial of most of the tree and landscape amendment in November and to recommend denying the TIA and TOZ amendments in December — citing concerns about piecemeal approving amendments while the overall update is ongoing.

Shortly after the planning board gave its recommendations, North Carolina Senate Bill 382 was adopted into law. A provision in the bill prohibits local governments from downzoning properties, decreasing densities, reducing permitted uses or creating any type of non-conformities.

“We’ve consulted with legal and have not yet moved forward with the proposed text amendments because they may not comply with the new law,” Dixon said. “The most impactful text amendments and the ones that everybody wants require additional landscaping and buffering, thus creating non-conforming site elements and downzoning.

Some of the text amendments, such as the TIA amendment and portions of the tree and landscape amendment, would not violate S.B. 382’s provisions, Dixon noted.

“Several less impactful text amendments such as updating definitions and lists could potentially move forward,” she explained. “The TOZ could not move forward at all because it would create non-conforming and downzoning. The tree text amendment, there are portions that would be allowed but have to do with definitions and lists. And the TIA would be the one most likely to move forward.”

Bills, including House Bill 24, have been introduced to overturn the downzoning provision of S.B. 382, but it is unclear if those bills will advance into law and, if they do, when. H.B. 24, for example, has sat in committee since Feb. 3.

“Planning staff has been collaborating with N-Focus to integrate portions of the three text amendments into the new UDO if they become allowable under law,” Dixon said. “But if the current law is not changed, elements of the text amendments can’t be included in the new UDO and alternatives will have to be examined at that time.”

Because of the new downzoning restrictions, Dixon said planning staff would recommend the commissioners deny the three amendments if the amendments were to be considered now.

In light of this, Dixon presented the board of commissioners with two options for moving forward: one, set public hearings and consider the text amendments knowing staff recommends denial, or two, withdraw the three amendments and instruct the consultant to incorporate allowable elements of the amendments into the updated UDO.

“It’s my understanding the board of commissioners would be the impetus for these text amendments, so it would be the board of commissioners that would ask for the amendments to be withdrawn at this time,” County Attorney Bryan Batton said.

Chair Mike Forte said he has been told the downzoning provision will be rescinded by July, noting he would prefer to withdraw the amendments while talks over rescinding the provision play out. “I’d prefer to just pause it for a few months,” he said. “Let’s see what they do, so we know what we can do.”

Commissioners Pat Sykes said the county needs to move now to address the ongoing residential growth through immediate updates to the UDO.

“I don’t think we’re doing our citizens justice by not getting this UDO changed so that the growth is more managed than what it is,” Sykes said. “All this clear cutting and building straight on the highway is just crazy. This county has a lot of wetlands and a lot of these houses are going to be underwater once we have another hurricane. I hate it for the citizens that’s trying to move here and buy a house and then they’re flooded. So, my thing is, I want to move forward to get something better for the citizens.”

Sykes, in consensus with the other commissioners, also instructed staff to send a letter to Brunswick County’s representatives in the North Carolina General Assembly urging them “to move forward with this repeal” of S.B. 382’s downzoning provision.

“People are going to keep coming and they’re going to keep building and we’re going to keep dealing with issues every time there’s a major [weather] event that impacts the county … I think we need to do something to ensure that we’re able to carry on with our UDO text amendments,” said Commissioner Randy Thompson, echoing Sykes.

Thompson asked Batton if commissioners could consider the TOZ, TIA and tree and landscape amendments now, regardless of S.B. 382.

“Can we act on them?” Thompson asked. “Bottom line is, the commissioners need to take a stand and address this issue. So, can we address all of those tax amendments now?”

“No,” Batton said in response. “You cannot because according to Senate Bill 382, you cannot make any changes which decrease density,” noting the board can only act on minor amendments like updating definitions and lists.

The board ultimately voted 3-2 in favor of withdrawing the amendments and referring them back to the consultant to be incorporated into the updated UDO. Commissioner Frank Williams made the motion to withdraw, with Commissioner Marty Cooke seconding and Forte voting in favor. Sykes and Thompson voted against the motion.

“It’s been my position all along that this was the type of reason we hired the consultant to do these things and I would like to see the planning staff’s recommendation followed,” Williams said.

This is a developing story. New information on the UDO rewriting process and the potential repeal of S.B. 382’s downzoning provision will be reported by The Brunswick Beacon as it is gathered.