Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senate Bill 166 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
High Point staff outlines local impacts of Senate Bill 166, urges UDO review
Summary
City staff briefed the High Point City Council on changes in Senate Bill 166, saying most provisions have no immediate local impact but flagging items (sidewalks in the ETJ, third‑party acceptance of improvements, reclassification of four‑family dwellings) that may require text amendments or policy adjustments in the Unified Development Ordinance.
High Point Assistant City Manager Damon Duquesne told the City Council that Senate Bill 166 is an omnibus building-and-land-use bill that largely changes how some local regulations are applied but leaves many High Point practices intact.
Duquesne said the law was vetoed and then overridden Sept. 29 and that city staff have reviewed each provision for local effect. “Backflow preventers are already required if there’s a hazard present,” Duquesne said, noting the city is already compliant with that provision. He added that the city’s building plan-review times — previously measured in months — now run three to five days, well under the new statutory deadlines for residential and commercial reviews.
The presentation outlined several provisions that staff flagged for follow-up. Duquesne said the law will bar municipalities from withholding certificates of occupancy for unfinished landscaping or site lighting; those items may instead be secured by bond. The bill also prohibits local governments from requiring sidewalks in small residential subdivisions located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) unless the city will accept long-term maintenance, a change Duquesne said could require a text amendment to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
On inspection and acceptance of improvements, Duquesne said the new law requires the city to accept required inspections or certification from a third‑party licensed engineer if the developer obtains such certification and the city and developer disagree over whether improvements meet local specifications. “If we disagree on where the improvements meet our local specs, then the developer can obtain certification under an outside engineer seal,” Duquesne said, adding the city has already accepted third‑party inspections on some developments.
Councilmember Judy, who said she had been involved in drafting portions of the bill, thanked staff for the review. Mayor Pro Tem Holmes raised concerns about liability if a third‑party engineer certifies infrastructure the city later finds defective; City Attorney Megan said the city’s contracts and professional-services agreements are written to address liability in worst-case scenarios and that the city has seen growing negotiation requests on indemnification and damage caps.
Other notable changes staff called out: the law clarifies limits on requiring local fire-prevention standards beyond the residential code; it treats artificial turf as pervious for local stormwater programs (staff noted a UDO text amendment will likely be needed); and it reclassifies four‑family dwellings so they are treated in the residential code (potentially allowing four units without a sprinkler system if other code conditions are met), a change Duquesne said will have building-code implications when the updated code is released.
Staff recommended continuing to track implementation steps, pursue targeted UDO amendments where necessary, and monitor rulemaking by state agencies such as the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Department of Labor/Industry for certification programs referenced in the law.
Duquesne and Director of Inspection Services Reggie Hux led the briefing and answered council questions about consequences for plan review timelines, third‑party inspections, and UDO updates. The presentation concluded with staff saying they will bring specific UDO text amendments forward during the city’s scheduled UDO update process.
