July 25, 2014
July 24, 2014
Hous[ing] or Hous[ton]: North Carolina House Passes Legislation "Clarifying" Limits to Municipal Zoning Powers
We blogged last week here about North Carolina House Bill 150, entitled "An Act to Clarify When a County or Municipality May Enact Zoning Ordinances Related to Design and Aesthetic Controls". The purpose of the Act is to "clarify" that local governments in North Carolina do not have the power under zoning enabling legislation to regulate the look of homes.
The Act provides that a local government -- whether county or municipality -- is unable to control the following with respect to residences: exterior building color; type or style of exterior cladding material; style or materials of roof structures or porches; exterior nonstructural architectural ornamentation; location or architectural styling of windows and doors, including garage doors; the number and types of rooms; and the interior layout of rooms. Under the Act, local governments in North Carolina would not be able to regulate these things through the zoning power. Wait. Maybe we mean to say that local governments in North Carolina are not now able to regulate these things through the zoning power, and the Act is the belt to the suspenders that is the zoning law as it already exists.
The Act excludes from the prohibition (i) the height, bulk, orientation, or location of a structure on a zoning lot; and (ii) the use of buffering or screening to minimize visual impacts, to mitigate the impacts of light and noise, or to protect the privacy of neighbors. Under the Act, it appears that local governments in North Carolina would still have the ability to regulate these aspects of land use pursuant to the zoning power.
The House of the North Carolina General Assembly has passed a version of House Bill 150, which will now go to vote in the Senate chamber of the General Assembly. The "passed" version of the Bill can be found here.
We will continue to monitor this proposed legislation, which has been generally panned by local governments and supported by homebuilders, both with some fury
<span class="advertise"> Advertisement </span>
- Following Recent Maryland Ruling, Federal Court Declares New Jersey Scheme to Promote Investment in In-State Generation Unconstitutional
- The North Carolina Supreme Court: Metrics for 2013
- Showdown in the Richmond: The City of Richmond Threatens Eminent Domain on Underwater Loans
- Fourth Circuit Weighs In On Pandhandling and Fortune Teller Ordinances
- Unusual Circumstances: California Supreme Court Upholds Limited Use of Future Conditions Baseline Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
- Imperfect Fit: Abercrombie Store Threatens Location In Tailored-Clothing Mecca Savile Row