The Alliance for Cape Fear Trees (ACFT) strongly opposes North Carolina House Bill 765 ("Local Gov. Development Regulations Omnibus"), introduced this month in the General Assembly. If passed, this sweeping legislation would strip municipalities of critical land-use authority, allowing for development that prioritizes speed and sprawl over local input, environmental sustainability, and long-term public health.

Despite its framing as an affordable housing measure, NC House Bill 765 is a radical bill that undermines local planning and public engagement processes. It removes key tools that communities use to manage growth and protect quality of life, including:

• Mandating “by-right” density minimums based solely on population size—bypassing community input and environmental assessment;

• Prohibiting municipalities from adopting street design standards that exceed minimal state requirements, threatening efforts to build walkable, tree-lined neighborhoods;

• Eliminating voluntary Conditional Zoning agreements, which are essential to negotiating development that aligns with local sustainability goals.

​

While some developers work in good faith with communities, HB 765 caters to those who ignore local priorities—those willing to trade long-term livability for short-term profit. ​

​

This bill isn’t about affordable housing—it’s about developer convenience. It removes communities' ability to guide growth in ways that preserve tree canopy, manage stormwater, reduce heat, and enhance livability.

​

LET LOCAL LEADERS LEAD

North Carolina’s cities and towns are diverse. What works for Charlotte may not work for Wilmington. HB765 ignores this reality, enforcing one-size-fits-all rules and eroding local democracy.

​

Worse still, HB 765 appears designed not only to preempt local land-use authority, but to intimidate and hamstring local decision-makers. The bill includes troubling provisions that:

• Require city councils or county commissions to prepare fiscal notes for any ordinance that could impact the cost of a single-family home—and allows residents to take legal action if they don’t;

• Prohibit elected officials from voting on any development regulation if they’ve expressed a “fixed opinion” beforehand;

• Make consistency statements with comprehensive plans subject to judicial review; 

• Expand legal grounds to challenge ordinances as “arbitrary or capricious,” inviting costly litigation.