(Ed. note: This article was updated to reflect the Board of Commissioners approved sending legislative letters regarding local control over open burning along with opposition to downzoning law.)
BRUNSWICK COUNTY — After months of being told they had little authority to regulate open burning for land-clearing purposes, Brunswick County commissioners considered potential changes to the unified development ordinance to address land-clearing open burning but did not advance the proposal, instead opting to pursue letters seeking expanded authority from state lawmakers.
The proposal was presented during an April 6 meeting by staff, explaining the county may be able to tighten local standards. As part of the county’s ongoing UDO rewrite, a recent consultant review identified options to improve the solid waste ordinance to mirror existing state rules, including: increased minimum setback distances from occupied structures from 100 to 500 feet, limited burns to vegetative debris, and required weather monitoring for favorable wind conditions, so burning is paused when smoke drifts towards neighborhoods, schools, or other sensitive areas.
READ MORE: Belville aligns with Leland on burn ban, push for united front
ALSO: Constitutional amendment to implement property tax limits moves forward to General Assembly
Commissioners were told last November that counties could not fully ban or significantly restrict land-clearing burns under state law as they’re primarily regulated under state fire and air quality laws, with enforcement handled by the North Carolina Forest Service. However, earlier this month, staff explained North Carolina law allows local governments to adopt and enforce regulations consistent with, but not more restrictive than existing state rules. In the last four months, staff has researched a workaround as the county continuously receives feedback from the public about smoke impacts from nearby burns, tied to land-clearing of trees and vegetation for new residential and commercial buildings.
Residents have long been concerned over health and safety when open burns occur, especially considering the county’s aging population who are more vulnerable to respiratory illness. According to the North Carolina Rural Center, the average age in Brunswick County is about 56, roughly 16 years older than the state average of 39.
Impacts are not limited to older residents. In March, smoke from a nearby land-clearing burn drifted onto the Waccamaw School campus in Ash, forcing an early dismissal for students and cancellation of afternoon activities.
“I know they had bad air quality, we had to shut down school,” Commissioner Pat Sykes said. “That’s a major cost to the citizens of this county, and especially the kids not being in school.”
The draft ordinance proposed by staff would have largely mirrored N.C. Forest Service requirements. Under the proposal, county employees who handle code compliance would not have direct enforcement authority; instead, they would monitor burn sites, document conditions, such as wind direction and fire size, and forward findings to state forestry officials for possible enforcement.
“This would make our enforcement staff additional eyes and ears for the forestry services,” County Manager Steve Stone told the board.
Several commissioners questioned whether the updated ordinance would change outcomes on the ground.
Commissioner Randy Thompson liked the idea of county monitors, but didn’t think it would be helpful if the state didn’t follow through on corrective actions.
“If land-clearing is going on and they exceed the fuel load [or] burning more piles, and our monitor catches and tells the state, and then the state doesn’t provide some type of forceful fine for it, then I think that it’s not going to go where it needs to go,” he said.
Brunswick towns Leland and Belville have both adopted outright bans on land-clearing open burning within municipal limits, using public safety and nuisance authority granted to cities and towns under state law. Under the law, municipalities have broader authority than counties to restrict activities deemed to pose risks to public health and safety.
Staff also pointed to a potential alternative: a local air quality control program approved by the state Environmental Management Commission. The program would allow the county to gain the authority to adopt stricter air quality rules and, if approved, impose their own enforcement. However, staff noted the process requires state approval and demands proof of ongoing air quality impacts specifically tied to land-clearing burns.
“We’re talking about state government — sometimes that takes a while,” Chairman Mike Forte said, noting the process to create an air quality control program would not be immediate and could be elongated over multiple years.
Frustrated by the limitations, Thompson suggested the county test the boundaries of its authority rather than waiting for state approval or action.
“Maybe that’s what we ought to do,” he said, “go ahead and pass a rule and then let somebody jump out [and challenge it]. That’s what we’ve got two attorneys for — put them to work.”
Commissioners did not advance the ordinance proposal. Concerned the UDO would not meaningfully change open-burning practices without stronger state action, they, instead, directed staff to draft a letter to state lawmakers for expanded authority over land-clearing burns. The letter, approved at the board’s April 20 meeting, cited rapid population growth, a growing retirement community, and resident complaints about smoke impacts as reasons for seeking the change.
While the group was discussing the potential legislation request, they pivoted to other state-level topics: tax policy and downzoning.
The downzoning conversation centered on Senate Bill 382, a 2023 state law restricting local governments’ ability to reduce zoning intensity without property owner consent. Under the law, local governments cannot rezone property to a less intensive use unless affected property owners agree in writing.
County staff said that restriction could directly affect Brunswick County’s ongoing unified development ordinance rewrite, particularly where commissioners have considered lowering residential density in flood-prone areas to reduce pressure on drainage systems or limiting the types of development allowed in certain zoning districts.
Vice Chairman Marty Cooke said the county is “stymied” by the downzoning law and was frustrated by not finishing the UDO “until we get the downzoning done.”
Under S.B. 382, UDO updates could be challenged by the state if they are interpreted as downzoning, limiting the county’s flexibility to adjust land use designations during the rewrite process.
Commissioners also raised concerns about state-level tax policy proposals emerging this week from the House Select Committee on Property Tax Reduction and Reform. If approved in the short session, which opens April 21, the policy would place limits on how much property tax revenue counties can collect year-to-year. Under current proposals, the state would be allowed to set “levy limits,” effectively capping annual growth in local property tax revenue regardless of changes in property values or local budget needs.
In practical terms, counties could be restricted in how much funding they are able to raise through property taxes — even during years when growth or service demands drive up costs for public safety, schools and infrastructure. Any limit would likely force local governments to either reduce spending or seek voter approval to exceed the cap.
“We have the ninth lowest tax rate in the state,” Forte said, noting Brunswick County’s rate of 34.2 cents per $100. “We’re being penalized for some poorly run runaway counties and municipalities. We’re going to take the brunt when we’ve done what is the right thing to do.”
Supporters of the proposal argue the limits are intended to protect taxpayers from sharp increases in property tax bills and place guardrails on local spending. Critics, including commissioners, say it shifts control over local budgets toward the state and could limit a county’s ability to respond to rapid growth or rising service demands.
Thompson’s original motion included all three subjects — open-burning, tax policy and downzoning — be addressed in one letter. However, the bundled approach drew immediate disagreement, with commissioners split over whether the issues should be handled individually.
“I’m not in favor of a letter that covers everything in the world known to man,” Cooke said, contending the topics were too broad for a single letter and wouldn’t result in meaningful action.
Thompson amended his motion to request staff break up the issues into three separate letters for each policy area.
The letters on open burning regulation and downzoning came back before the board for review on April 20. Both were unanimously approved by commissioners.
Have tips or suggestions for Charlie Fossen? Email [email protected]
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
