House Bill 913 would create a new remedy within North Carolina’s development-approval statutes for people with standing to challenge local government actions. It authorizes courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees in actions brought under Article 14 of Chapter 160D, and in certain cases requires fee-shifting when a local government is found to have intentionally violated the chapter, intentionally delayed a development approval to provoke litigation, or acted in a flagrantly unfair or deceptive manner with the intent to force a lawsuit.
The bill also adds a punitive-damages provision for the most egregious conduct. If a court finds that a local government acted in a flagrantly unfair or deceptive manner with the intent to trigger litigation, the court must award punitive damages in addition to attorneys’ fees, up to 10 times the proven damages. The bill defines damages to include lost revenue, increased costs caused by delay, and other proven losses. It also protects local governments from fee awards when they reasonably relied on certain legal authorities, including court orders, appellate opinions, Business Court orders, or written guidance from the Attorney General.
In practical terms, the bill would increase the financial exposure of local governments in development-dispute cases and give developers or other parties with standing stronger leverage when challenging approval delays or alleged bad-faith conduct. It amends Chapter 160D of the General Statutes, which governs local planning and development regulation, by adding a new section on damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The act would apply only to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is pro-accountability and pro-development, with a clear focus on deterring intentional delay or deceptive conduct by local governments. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct public debate is available here. However, the bill’s language suggests likely support from development interests seeking faster, more predictable approvals, and potential concern from local governments about increased litigation risk, punitive damages, and the possibility that routine permitting disputes could become more costly.
HB913 would amend Article 14 of Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new section, G.S. 160D-1425, governing attorneys’ fees, costs, and punitive damages in development-approval litigation. It would expand the remedies available to prevailing parties with standing, require fee awards in specified cases of intentional misconduct by local governments, and authorize punitive damages up to 10 times actual damages for flagrantly unfair or deceptive conduct intended to provoke litigation. The bill would also create a reliance defense for local governments acting in accordance with existing legal authority and would apply prospectively to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 2025.
The bill appears generally favorable to developers and property-rights advocates by strengthening remedies against local governments that delay or mishandle development approvals. Its tone is accountability-focused and deterrent-oriented, aiming to discourage intentional obstruction or deceptive conduct. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the legislative record included here, but the measure’s enhanced liability provisions suggest it may draw concern from municipal and county governments.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s expansion of local government liability, especially the mandatory fee-shifting and punitive-damages provisions tied to findings of intentional delay or “flagrantly unfair or deceptive” conduct. Local governments may argue that these standards are subjective and could chill legitimate permitting decisions or expose them to costly litigation. Supporters are likely to emphasize accountability, faster development decisions, and remedies for bad-faith delay. The bill partially addresses local-government concerns by providing a safe harbor when officials reasonably rely on court decisions, Business Court orders, or Attorney General guidance.