[Ed. note: The co-legislation unanimously passed the House on Tuesday, May 12, and must now gain Senate approval.]
BRUNSWICK COUNTY — Two pieces of legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly are tackling which board should have final authoritative power on developments coming to Brunswick County.
Earlier in the week, Sen. Bill Rabon filed Senate Bill 1079 and Rep. Charlie Miller put forth House Bill 1222. Language in both bills mirror one another:
“The Brunswick County Board of Commissioners shall make the final decision on all development approvals in Brunswick County. The official record of all meetings where a development approval is decided shall reflect how each member voted on each development approval before the Board.”
READ MORE: Who should have development approval power in Brunswick? Staff assessing commissioner authority
ALSO: Brunswick residents argue planning board has too much authority
Brunswick County is the only one in the tri-county region — and one of a handful statewide — to allow its planning board to sign off on final developments. In surrounding Pender and New Hanover counties, the planning board only makes suggestions to commissioners, who then have the final say.
Neither Rabon nor Miller responded by press regarding what prompted them to file the legislation requiring Brunswick County change its process. Though concerns have been raised at the county level, such as in a motion put forward by Commissioner Pat Sykes last August for staff to begin its research into stripping the planning board of its final authority and putting it back on commissioners.
Sykes told Port City Daily she believed the commissioners’ “responsibility is to remain accountable and responsive to the citizens of Brunswick County,” especially as it continues to grow.
In 1980, she pointed out, the county had a population of 35,777, noting today it’s escalated to 174,702.
“Given this significant increase, I believe the Board of Commissioners should be more directly informed about development activity and should make the final decisions, as we are elected by the people to oversee the county’s future,” she said.
There are more than 43,000 units in the pipeline countywide, some dating back to 2017, according to the county’s GIS development tracker.
Brunswick County spokesperson Meagan Kascsak said the county commissioners have never authorized major subdivisions, site plans or planned developments, unless their rejection from the planning board is appealed to commissioners.
The commissioners held authority on rezonings until 2019 when the North Carolina General Assembly approved a request to allow the planning board to make final decisions. Kascsak said the board of commissioners also hold authority to make changes to the unified development ordinance.
Commissioner Randy Thompson, first elected in 2014 and up for re-election this year against Democrat Gary Woods, is in support of the legislation as well. He said he has discussed the matter with Miller and Rabon.
“[They] both have a good understanding of the action needing to take place for local officials to set forth policy and ordinances necessary to address this critical issue,” Thompson said, adding he supports the bills. “I feel sure they have also heard from the citizens of Brunswick County that are fed-up with the current established practice.”
One is Christie Marek, a frequent planning board meeting attendee from Ash. She often brings up before the board the lack of infrastructure, overcapacity of schools and loss of farmland Brunswick County faces with every new development approved.
Marek said she fully supports the legislation: “Our elected officials should be taking on this responsibility. There is a lot of finger-pointing and this would end it.”
More so, Marek believes after November’s election, it will make a difference on vote shifting. Marty Cooke lost his district 2 seat in the primary after having first been elected to the board in 2008; running in his stead will be Republican Patti Hewett and Democrat Sara Singer.
“Commissioners are elected, so voters will see who is voting on what, so it will determine whether they keep that seat or are replaced next term,” Marek added. “For the ones that want political futures, it will hold them accountable … and show exactly where they stand.”
Currently, commissioenrs appoint the planning board’s members — one representative for each of the five districts and two at-large members, plus an alternate. The current planning board is going through a shapeshift, with board member Jim Board resigning in March and Jason Gaver stepping down after moving to New Hanover County.
Mr. Board has been outspoken about the planning board’s authority, stating frustration with a perceived lack of authority to manage the county’s growth. He called the “checkmark process” board members use ineffective; essentially, developments are approved if they meet “competent, material, and substantial evidence” requirements listed in the county’s UDO. The UDO is the rulebook for all development and governs everything from lot sizes and building heights, to parking and storm drainage.
While the UDO technically allows the board to deny a project if it poses a risk to public safety, Board argued to Port City Daily upon his resignation that the threshold for proving such problems has become “functionally unreachable.”
“Seeing Mr. Board resign was saddening and I hope he runs for a commissioner seat one day because he does his research and listens,” Marek said. “We have had planning board members resign because their voice has been ignored.”
For the last few years, Brunswick County residents — including Marek — have called out both planning board members and commissioners for disproportionately representing developer interests by accepting campaign donations from varied contractors and companies. This most recently happened in March, as reported by Port City Daily.
Thompson sent a letter to planning board chair Clif Cheek asking him to step down due to “a number of developers” tied to projects in various stages of the development pipeline.
Cheek was running against Thompson in the primary for the district 1 bid but lost. Campaign finance records show Cheek accepted a $3,000 donation from Robert Wilfong Jr. — the developer of PE Development Resource Group out of Myrtle Beach, behind Winnabow’s Cherrytree Tract. The project was previously reviewed and approved by the planning board at its March 9 meeting; Cheek voted in favor of the proposal.
Marek believes had the Cherrytree Tract been before commissioners, a different outcome could have prevailed. The 780-acre, 1,000-home planned development was first denied by the planning board last fall due to traffic and safety concerns but passed in March. Approval came from tweaks developers made to include more active open space, such as the addition of three parks, including fencing and landscaping, and donating 0.5 acres for potential EMS needs along Cherrytree Road.
Marek also was one of the first people to call out Cheek earlier this year for his campaign donations, both in front of the planning board and on social media. In addition to Wilfong, Cheek accepted donations from D. Logan, president of Logan Homes, Ralph R. Teal Jr., co-founder of Pinehurst Builders, and Ronnell Parker Jr., CEO of Parker Homes.
The planning board chair countered accusations, saying it didn’t present a conflict of interest as donations are routine and only problematic if an “official uses their position to secure direct personal financial gain or gives preferential treatment in a way that violates established ethics rules or legal standards.”
Port City Daily reached out to the planning board chair about the legislation put forth by Miller and Rabon but didn’t hear back by press.
However, Thompson and Sykes believe an authority changeover is only one part of a greater need to tackle sustainable growth and effect positive change in Brunswick County. Both point to overturning the General Assembly’s downzoning legislation.
Two bills were put forth in Raleigh last year but stalled to overturn a portion of Senate Bill 382, marked as a Hurricane Helene relief initiative. However, the 131-page bill also tacked on varied provisions outside of disaster needs, including one that disallowed area governments from making changes to reduce development density or permitted uses for a property without all property owners’ approval. In recent years, government entities may have initiated a change to a property’s zoning for environmental preservation or to limit impervious surfaces in flood prone areas.
Sykes said the current law has hurt the county’s efforts to modernize its unified development ordinance but also influences developments currently approved. One hangup is a flood prevention amendment to reduce housing density in some flood zones.
“This needs to be addressed as soon as possible so that the commissioners can set policy and change ordinances related to addressing the development process,” Thompson said. “Without the downzoning being addressed, little will be accomplished.”
County staff have been heeding advice from the UNC School of Government to act cautiously and ensure proposed ordinance changes are legally sound. Particularly they worry the flood prevention amendment change would make them more vulnerable to lawsuits due to S.B. 352’s passing.
However, Kascsak told Port City Daily another change put forth in the new code would be making large developments move through a conditional zoning planned development process instead of allowing administrative approval. This would give county authorities a little more execution over addressing project impacts and even request stipulations.
“This change provides staff and the planning board additional tools and greater discretion in evaluating proposals, including the ability to deny projects,” Kascsak said.
It also would allow the public to appeal planning board decisions to the board of commissioners.
Also among changes proposed: smaller developments would go through administrative approvals that are reviewed and approved by staff.
Kascsak said it’s “still too early to assess” how Miller and Rabon’s legislation could impact the county’s changes to the Land Development Ordinance.
What is clear to Thompson, Brunswick County is different in 2026 from when its rules were established 52 years ago.
“I have been involved with Brunswick County since 2000 and our county has greatly changed since that time,” he said, stating commissioners should be the “decision-makers” on how it continues to grow.
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.
