HB 369 would limit the ability of local governments in North Carolina to regulate certain off-street parking and stormwater-related development standards. In the parking portion, the bill prohibits zoning or development regulations from setting minimum square footage for regulated residential structures, requiring parking spaces larger than 9 feet by 20 feet except for certain specialized spaces, mandating a minimum number of parking spaces per development regardless of use or occupancy, requiring extra fire apparatus access roads beyond the state residential fire code, or imposing pavement design standards stricter than the Department of Transportation’s minimum standards. The parking restrictions include exemptions for certain historic properties and districts, and for local governments in the coastal area.
The bill also narrows local authority over stormwater controls for redevelopment. It provides that existing built-upon area cannot be counted again for density calculations or subjected to new or increased stormwater controls, and that redevelopment may only be required to manage stormwater for any net new impervious surface above what existed before. Local governments must update their stormwater ordinances to match these rules, and any inconsistent local ordinance becomes void and unenforceable after the compliance period. The bill also allows local governments to offer optional incentives, such as fee waivers or tax benefits, for projects that exceed minimum stormwater requirements.
HB 369 would amend G.S. 160D-702 and G.S. 143-214.7, affecting local zoning, development regulation, and stormwater management authority statewide. It would also create a small appropriation of $5,000 to the Department of Commerce for education efforts aimed at helping property owners understand the financial benefits of reducing excess parking. The bill takes effect largely when it becomes law, with the parking provisions delayed until July 1, 2026, and local governments given 12 months to conform stormwater ordinances.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is deregulatory and pro-development, emphasizing reduced local mandates and lower compliance costs for property owners and developers. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, but the structure of the bill suggests support for limiting local government discretion and for encouraging redevelopment by reducing required stormwater upgrades. The inclusion of historic-district and coastal-area exceptions indicates an effort to balance statewide uniformity with preservation and coastal-management concerns.
The main points of contention are likely to be local control versus statewide preemption, especially for municipalities that use parking minimums, stricter pavement standards, or broader stormwater requirements to manage growth, infrastructure, and water quality. Environmental and local planning interests may object to the limits on stormwater controls for redevelopment, while developers, property owners, and some business groups may support the bill for reducing costs and regulatory burdens. Historic preservation and coastal local governments are singled out for exemptions, suggesting those constituencies were also relevant to the bill’s design.
HB 369 would preempt and narrow several areas of local regulatory authority in North Carolina. It amends the zoning and development powers statute to bar local governments from imposing certain parking, road, and pavement requirements, and it revises the state stormwater statute to restrict when local governments may require additional stormwater controls for existing development or redevelopment. Local stormwater ordinances must be brought into conformity, and conflicting provisions become unenforceable. The bill also creates a modest Commerce Department appropriation for outreach on parking-lot optimization.
The bill appears generally favorable to property owners, developers, and redevelopment interests because it reduces mandated parking and stormwater compliance costs and limits local government discretion. The available record contains no committee transcripts or votes, so there is no direct evidence of floor debate or formal opposition in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the bill’s tone is strongly deregulatory, with limited carveouts for historic districts and coastal governments.
The likely controversy centers on state preemption of local land-use and environmental regulation. Supporters would likely argue that parking minimums and retroactive stormwater requirements increase housing and redevelopment costs unnecessarily, while opponents would likely argue that local governments need flexibility to manage traffic, drainage, infrastructure, and water-quality impacts. Historic preservation interests and coastal local governments receive explicit exemptions, indicating those areas were important in negotiations and may have been used to address concerns about one-size-fits-all regulation.