Two For Tuesday | April 22, 2025
#1 Transportation Legislation On the Move
As was previously reported, the positive movement in Raleigh on the Mecklenburg County transportation front continues its forward motion. Two Senate bills, SB 145 and SB 584 were introduced in March and April. And now a companion measure, HB 984, has been introduced by Representative Tricia Cotham. REBIC applauds the forward-thinking legislation that has been filed, continuing the critical momentum needed to expand Mecklenburg County’s transportation system. House Bill 948, Projects for Advancing Vehicle-infrastructure Enhancements (The PAVE Act), would allow voters in Mecklenburg County to support smart investments that would shape a brighter future for the city, county, and every town in Mecklenburg County.
Legislators in the House and Senate have now stepped up to lead this effort, with Rep. Tricia Cotham joining Senators Bill Rabon, David Craven, and Vickie Sawyer who filed the earlier bills. We appreciate their leadership and their continued support of the community.
More than 117 people move to the Charlotte Region every day and the growth is expected to continue. The region’s population is expected to grow by nearly 50% by 2050. This legislation will allow the people of Mecklenburg an opportunity to vote yes for greater investments in the region’s roads, transit, and bus system, helping to ensure that the region can maintain an outstanding quality of life. Having a transportation system that meets the needs of our growing population ensures we remain attractive for businesses to grow and relocate here, a critical piece to support our sustained economic vitality.
My Take: This is a really big deal. This process started about five years ago and has finally culminated in this moment. Key legislative leaders have introduced bills authorizing a sales tax increase for transportation and establishing an authority to manage those funds. One or more of these measures is likely slated for action within the next month or so. We need to be rallying our voices along with others within the business community to assist in getting it across the finish line in Raleigh so we can start the campaign here at home. Once the official schedule has been adopted, we’ll be back in touch about how you can help!
#2 Transformative Land Use Legislation Clears First Hurdle
A bill we mentioned in last week’s edition of 2 for Tuesday, HB 765 passed out of the Housing and Development Committee last week. With this important step complete, the bill now moves to the House Judiciary II Committee for further consideration. The bill still has two remaining committee stops in the House before it can advance to the House floor. With each committee hearing, NCHBA and the NC Realtors® fully expect growing opposition from local governments and other groups that continue to resist efforts aimed at increasing housing supply. Despite this, we and our industry partners will continue working closely with stakeholders to advance sound housing policies that support North Carolina’s continued growth and economic vitality.
We are proud to stand with our bill sponsors, Representatives Jeff Zenger (R-Forsyth), Matthew Winslow(R-Franklin), Mark Brody (R-Union) and Carla Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg) as this vital legislation continues to move through the legislative process.
The bill includes 21 distinct provisions designed to improve the development process. These changes aim to streamline regulatory challenges and ultimately increase housing supply. Here is a summary of each provision and its intended purpose:
- Section 1: Housing Affordability Impact Statements – Requires state fiscal analysts and local governments to evaluate whether proposed laws or ordinances could increase housing costs.
- Section 2: Limit Planning and Development Regulations Authority to that Expressly Granted by Chapter 160D of the General Statutes – Restricts local planning and development regulation authority strictly to powers expressly granted under Chapter 160D.
- Section 3: Extends Duration of Site-Specific Vesting Plans from Two Years to Five Years and Limits the Applicability of Subsequent Changes to Land Development Regulations – Increases the duration of site-specific vesting plans from two years to five years.
- Section 4: Strengthen Prohibition on Local Governing Board Conflicts of Interest – Strengthens conflicts of interest requirements for local governing board members and prohibits participation in decisions where there is a direct financial impact, close relationships, fixed opinions, or ex parte communications.
- Section 5: Establish Jurisdiction for Land that Lies Within More than One Local Government – Establishes clear jurisdictional authority for properties located within the boundaries of more than one local government.
- Section 6: Clarify Local Government Fees Related to Development Regulations – Specifies that local government fees related to development regulations must not exceed the amount reasonably required to actually support, administer, and implement programs authorized by Chapter 160D. Permit and inspection fees often exceed the actual costs incurred by local governments in performing the associated reviews or inspections. The excess revenue is frequently diverted to the local government’s general fund to support unrelated operations, rather than being used solely for the regulatory purposes for which the fees were imposed.
- Section 7: Require Decisions on Uses Permitted by Right to be Determined Administratively in Large Cities – Requires larger municipalities to process “by-right” projects administratively without the need to receive governing body approval. Despite being a permitted use within the applicable zoning district—and fully complying with all use and development standards— projects are often subjected to unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming reviews by governing boards, even though no discretionary approval is legally required.
- Section 8: Require Rezoning and Site Plan Decisions in No More than 90 Days – Imposes a 90-day deadline for cities and counties to act on complete rezoning and site plan applications. Failure to meet this deadline results in automatic approval. Zoning decisions are often subject to unnecessary delays, frequently taking several months or even over a year, due to repeated rounds of revisions demanded by the local government. This provision ensures that local governments cannot alter requirements mid-process and that decisions are made in a timely manner, promoting predictability, accelerating project timelines, and reducing development costs.
- Section 9: Limit Zoning Regulation Authority – Local governments frequently impose so-called “voluntary conditions” as part of the zoning approval process, including conditions that developers are effectively required to accept in order to secure project approval. These conditions often go beyond that which is authorized by statute and, in some cases, directly conflict with local government’s statutory authority and court decisions. In addition, local governments often impose excessive regulations that restrict allowable density, mandate roadway and driveway standards that conflict with NCDOT requirements resulting in the creation of orphan roads, and required zoning conditions that exceed statutory authority or that have been deemed unlawful.
- Section 10: Require Zoning Districts to be Based on Density and Prohibit Conditions not Authorized by Law – Requires residential zoning districts to be classified based on the number of dwelling units per acre, promoting higher-density developments and clarifies actions permitted through conditional zoning. Some local governments have adopted restrictive density standards permitting only one residential unit per five acres. These policies lead to the inefficient consumption of farmland, depress property values, and, in many cases, make residential development economically or physically unfeasible due to the inability to accumulate a sufficient number of lots to meet the five-acre minimum. In addition to restrictive density limits, local governments often further constrain developable land through excessive open space mandates, oversized buffer and setback requirements, and unnecessarily wide road standards, among other burdensome regulations.
- Section 11: Administrative Subdivision Approvals – Mandates that final decisions on preliminary and final subdivision plats be made administratively by designated staff. Under current law, subdivision approvals must be made in accordance with clearly established procedures and objective, uniformly applied standards. Because these approvals do not involve discretionary judgment, they are more appropriately administered by professional staff rather than the governing body. Delegating this authority to staff streamlines the process, reduces costs and delays, and limits the potential for unnecessary political interference.
- Section 12: Allow Tiny Houses and Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Districts in Large Cities – Requires cities with populations of 125,000 or more to permit tiny houses and accessory dwelling units in residential districts.
- Section 13: Amend Requirements for Establishment of Historic Districts Sets criteria for designating historic districts, and requires petitions signed by 75% of property owners in the proposed district.
- Section 14: Require Only a Shell Permit for the Construction of Multifamily Developments – Prohibits local governments from requiring more than a shell permit for the construction of multifamily development projects and allows for certificates of occupancy for individual units as they meet criteria.
- Section 15: Expand Causes for Civil Action for Claims Involving Questions of Interpretation – Allows individuals and associations with standing to bring civil actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, damages, or other remedies to challenge the enforceability or validity of local land development regulations or decisions. This provision establishes a clear cause of action for individuals aggrieved by local land use decisions and clarifies both the types of decisions that may be challenged and who has standing to bring such challenges.
- Section 16: Expand Private Remedies for Violations of Chapter 160D
Provides that any person or entity may bring a civil action to enforce provisions of Chapter 160D and recover damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees, expanding private remedies for violations. This provision effectively functions as a private attorney general statute, empowering individuals to enforce public laws when government agencies fail or choose not to act. It enhances accountability by allowing citizens to challenge unlawful government actions—such as improper rezonings—that may otherwise go unchecked, particularly in land use matters where the public impact is significant and official enforcement is often limited.
- Section 17: Personal Liability for Certain Acts of Local Government Officials – Establishes personal liability for local government officials who knowingly and willfully violate statutes, with courts required to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties in such cases.
- Section 18: Require the Division of Highways to Accept Performances Guarantees Pending Completion of Streets – Requires the Division of Highways to accept performance guarantees to ensure the completion of subdivision streets required by municipal or county subdivision control ordinances, facilitating timely infrastructure development.
- Section 19: Limit Curb Cut Regulations – This provision serves as a conforming change to Sections 9 and 10, ensuring that any exercise of this authority by a local government is based on substantial evidence, is clearly justified, and is not imposed arbitrarily.
- Section 20: Provide for Reservation of Water and Sewer Capacity for Proposed Development – Mandates that public water and sewer systems reserve capacity for proposed developments upon receiving a completed application, ensuring infrastructure availability for new projects. This section ensures that local governments do not use the allocation of water and sewer capacity as a tool to impose unlawful conditions or to favor certain developments over others. It prevents jurisdictions from prioritizing projects based on subjective preferences when multiple proposals equally comply with adopted land use regulations.
- Section 21: Allow Package Plant Wastewater Treatment Systems – A “package plant” refers to a compact, pre-engineered system designed to treat sewage or industrial wastewater. This provision allows property owners to install wastewater systems if public or community wastewater systems are unavailable or unable to provide service, offering alternatives for wastewater management.
My Take: This bill is packed with a lot of really good items. I would argue that many elements of the measure would establish a greater level of certainty for industry members as well as local governments. As I see it, the language attempts to eliminate some of the existing gray areas and create a framework for practical land use within the state. We know what the problem is – that we need more housing. This bill would allow the market to do what it does best, which is provide a consistent supply to the consumer, ultimately resulting in a needed de-escalation of housing prices.
BACK TO LATEST NEWS
