LELAND — Town officials expressed confusion regarding appropriate enforcement of development regulations in Leland after a lobbyist-crafted law enacted widespread regulatory changes in the state. The town’s chief building official emphasized concerns that the law limits the town’s ability to manage flood risk.
READ MORE: Spooked by more flooding in Stoney Creek, Leland council broaches development ordinances
ALSO: Firefighters raise safety concerns after lawmakers override veto of lobbyist-crafted building code bill
Leland chief building official Daniel Knoch provided an overview of the impact of SB 166, the 2024 Building Code Reform law, at Thursday’s council meeting. The 70-page bill includes a sweeping range of provisions impacting development, fire, wastewater, and stormwater regulations in North Carolina.
Knoch said ambiguous language in the bill caused confusion about appropriate enforcement. He cited a section of the bill requiring the acceptance of “reasonable” materials, design, and construction.
“It doesn’t give clarity on what is reasonable,” he said.
“SB166 is another example of the General Assembly chipping away at municipalities’ authority over development,” council member Bill McHugh told Port City Daily.
McHugh argued that restraining local government authority over building regulations is inappropriate in North Carolina due to its large range of topography from mountains to coastline.
The General Assembly overrode Governor Roy Cooper’s veto of SB 166 earlier this month. It came a year after lawmakers overturned Cooper’s veto of a separate building code bill, House Bill 488, banning proposed energy efficiency updates for residential homes until 2031.
The recent building code reform bills stripped authority from the governor-appointed Building Code Council and created a separate body to regulate residential development.
Leland council members were discussing strengthening the town’s flood zone development ordinances after Potential Tropical Cyclone 8 deluged some areas with nearly 20 inches of rain last week. Leland’s damage assessment included 22 homes, of which 15 were considered having major damage, and four minor.
Thursday’s council discussion came as Hurricane Helene approached landfall in Florida before moving through multiple states and devastating parts of western North Carolina with multiple landslides and overwashed roads.
Knoch noted recent flooding in Leland and emphasized the importance of grading — the process of reshaping land at a construction site. He expressed concerns SB 166 would limit local government authority over grading and exacerbate flooding.
“This has language that we cannot withhold a CO (certificate of occupancy) due to that and that’s a pretty big problem,” he said. “That is one of the last things we can do to protect the homeowner or business owners is ensure that a lot is graded properly. So that’s just one example.”
The NC Home Builders Association is the primary supporter of SB 166. The group described the bill as its top legislative priority of 2024 and worked for months crafting all of its provisions.
NCHBA director of regulatory affairs Chris Millis told Port City Daily there is no prohibition on local governments from withholding a CO due to grading. He argued Knoch misinterpreted a section of the bill that applies to landscaping.
“There appears to be a severe misunderstanding of what the legislation actually does in contrast to individual interpretations shared in the [Leland council meeting] as there are no provisions within SB 166 that weaken flood controls, building safety, or building quality,” he said.
Millis is a former state representative in Pender County and engineer with Paramounte Engineering. He said developers would still be regulated by the residential code, which requires grading that directs surface drainage to a storm sewer or other approved point rather than foundation walls.
Millis said the section of the SB 166 in question in Leland was mainly about foundation plantings. New Hanover County commissioner Rob Zapple, an appointed member of the building code council, argued the law is open to interpretation and contended inspectors could apply it to grading at their discretion.
“The builders would like to say: ‘Oh my god, the inspectors are holding up my CO because I don’t have the right color tulips in the front yard,’” Zapple joked. “Which is a gross exaggeration, trying to impress the legislators. That’s how they interpret fine landscaping, but included would be the final grading.”
Zapple raised concerns about the long-term consequences of recent building code reforms on storm resiliency. He noted a provision in H.B. 488 bans local governments from requiring roof sheathing inspections unless they are exposed to winds over 140 miles per hour.
“This is what happens when the legislature allows a special interest to write the rules,” Zapple said.
SB 166 requires local governments to refund permit application fees if initial reviews of developments are not completed within 20 days. It prohibits inspectors from requiring affidavits from developers attesting their work is in compliance with the state’s building code.
“One of the [North Carolina Home Builders Association’s] main agenda items is to limit as many inspections as possible,” Zapple said.
Leland council member Veronica Carter emphasized a provision banning municipalities from requiring backflow preventers, a device used to prevent water from flowing back into the main water supply. Backflow can cause drinking water contamination.
“It just throws building into confusion,” Carter said at the meeting. “How do you cite somebody when it’s subjective or confusing? Or you can’t even enforce things that you know are safe?”
Drew Ball, southeastern campaigns director of environmentalist nonprofit National Resources Defense Council, told Port City Daily his organization shared concerns about potential environmental and safety ramifications of limiting backflow preventers. He also noted a provision removing elevation requirements for electric water heaters, which he argued is a safety and cost risk in flood prone areas.
Critics including Gov. Roy Cooper, Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey, the NC Fire Marshals Association, and the NC State Fire Association have raised concerns both the Senate and House bills will reduce expertise on regulatory boards, raise insurance rates for homeowners, limit federal grant opportunities, and cause safety risks.
The North Carolina Home Builders Association disputes the arguments. It contends the building code reform bills will increase affordable housing and economic opportunity in the state without negatively impacting safety, federal grant eligibility, or insurance costs. The group contends developers can be excessively burdened by municipal regulations and argues builders can still choose to include items such as backflow preventers and elevated electric water heaters without local government requirements.
NCHBA was heavily involved in writing both bills. It spent $346,458 on lobbying in 2023 and has spent $278,736 on campaign donations for the 2024 election, including maximum donations to local officials.
The North Carolina Home Builders Association PAC receives donations from members including prominent developers and real estate professionals based in the tri-county region:
NCHBA notes it worked directly with House Speaker Tim Moore to move forward with the SB 166 veto-override vote. NCHBA has donated $52,600 to the lawmaker and the national Home Builders Association donated $5,000 to his campaign in 2023.
Moore and Senate President Phil Berger — who has received $88,300 from NCHBA — appointed six NCHBA members to the Residential Code Council in June, including former NCHBA lobbyist Robert Privott.
“It’s pretty clear who it’s designed to benefit,” McHugh said.
Tips or comments? Email journalist Peter Castagno at [email protected].
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.