North Carolina’s General Assembly has slowly been wresting control over the past few years of land-use and development issues from its municipalities. The trend appears likely to continue this year.

Bills have been introduced — and met various levels of success — that would block local regulation of everything from tree removal to construction standards.

Recently, a special House Select Committee on Residential Planning and Permitting began holding hearings on the issue of whether local governments were being overly restrictive of home construction.

State Rep. Mark Brody, a Republican from Union County, is leading the hearings and indicated he intends to run a bill this year that would reduce the regulations that could be imposed on builders in North Carolina communities.

“We’re here to say, ‘If you give the OK to build, then don’t put other conditions in that are over and above what are required,’” Brody said in an interview with the Carolina Public Press.

Maybe we should call this the “Trailers on Slabs Preservation Act?”

Snubbing Their Noses?

Brody wants a statewide standard that would apply to all builders, so they all know what to expect. Yet we are not all the same. What it takes to build a home at the coast is different from building a home in Aberdeen, which is different from building a home in the Triangle or Asheville. Regardless of where it’s built, it should have a quality and sturdiness that holds up to more than just a stiff breeze.

When a developer approaches a municipality with a plan now, he usually must first pass muster with the professional staff before going before an all-volunteer, advisory Planning Board. From there, a town or village council considers the project.

Depending on what’s being proposed, a municipality might require a traffic study, or a survey of how the project will affect schools or other government services. And if a rezoning is required to accommodate the development, then a semi-judicial hearing might be required, at which special requirements might be instituted. That’s called a conditional-use permit, and they are the bane of builders, who long have lobbied for their death.

Brody, himself a licensed general contractor — surprise! — thinks municipalities are overstepping their bounds. It won’t surprise you to learn his committee’s recent hearing featured other builders complaining about that very thing.

"They are openly snubbing their noses at the laws that you pass to address housing affordability,” said Cary-based developer Tom Anhut, “while complaining that the housing being built is not affordable to the residents.”

Let’s Cooperate

The state’s League of Municipalities, which represents towns and cities, has resisted this centralization.

"Typically at the local level the local, officials deciding these issues have weighed a number of distinct local factors and all of the constituencies affected by these decisions,” said Scott Mooneyham, director of political communications and coordination for the N.C. League of Municipalities. “Attempting to do this at the state level with a one-size-fits-all solution from Raleigh would upend that balance and likely lead to decisions that would fail to take into account all interests," he said.

Should Raleigh get its way, imagine our towns where developers aren’t told to protect old-growth trees, don’t accept responsibility for road improvements their projects require or are allowed to construct homes out of proportion and character with those surrounding them.

Tract home builders are like water — always looking for the easiest way out. You think we have a growth problem now in Moore County? Just wait.

Unquestionably, we have a shortage of affordable housing in Moore County for the working class. But builders bypassing government input to throw up any ol’ thing isn’t the answer for communities. Only by working together on acceptable plans and common goals can our towns grow successfully. Raleigh has yet to realize that.

(2) comments

Peyton Cook

Thise an example of bureaucratic overreach.

Kent Misegades

There are two sides to this story. Builders generally offer attractive, well-built homes and buildings for competitive reasons. Not doing so hurts their reputation and business. Free markets do a far better job of regulating this than do politicians, tree-huggers and unelected bureaucrats. Many city planners have no concern about the financial impact of their rules in builders, but are the first to complain about lack of so-called affordable housing, which is a highly subjective term.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Comments that violate any of the rules above are subject to removal by staff.

Thank you for reading!

Please purchase a subscription to continue reading. Subscribe today and support local community journalism.

Digital Only Subscriptions

Get 24-7 digital-only access and support award-winning community journalism. This gives you access to thepilot.com and its electronic replica edition.

Starting at
$5.35 for 30 days

Already a Print Subscriber? Get Digital Access Free.

As a print subscriber , you also receive unlimited digital access. You can do that here. For any problems, call our customer service number at 910-693-2487 or 693-2488.

Free access for current print subscribers

Home Delivery

Get all the news of Moore County delivered to your home each Wednesday and Sunday with home delivery. Your home delivery subscription also includes unlimited digital access to thepilot.com.

Starting at
$27.82 for 90 days