Commercial Prop. Plan Review.
This bill requires local governments in North Carolina to complete initial reviews of commercial and multifamily building plans within 21 days and allows for expedited review using third-party architects or engineers. It also stipulates that fees must be refunded if the local government fails to meet these deadlines.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 291 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 291.
You're tracking HB 291
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 291 — Commercial Prop. Plan Review.
Last action — Withdrawn From Com
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed House
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2021-2022 Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
In plain language
The bill establishes time limits for local governments to review and approve commercial and multifamily building plans.
This bill requires local governments in North Carolina to complete initial reviews of commercial and multifamily building plans within 21 days and allows for expedited review using third-party architects or engineers. It also stipulates that fees must be refunded if the local government fails to meet these deadlines.
What this means for you
- Small Business: This means faster approvals for your building projects, reducing delays and costs.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
87 added · 118 removedPlain-language change summary
The amendment to Bill HB 291 removed references to "multifamily building plans," focusing solely on "commercial building plans." This change simplifies the bill's application and streamlines the approval process for local governments when it comes to reviewing designs submitted by licensed architects and engineers. This matters because it can potentially speed up construction projects and reduce administrative burdens for local governments.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2021 H 21 HOUSE BILL 291 Committee Substitute Favorable 4/22/21 Short Title:
Representatives Zenger, Potts, and Johnson (Primary Sponsors).
For a complete list of sponsors, refer to the North Carolina General Assembly web site.
Regulatory Reform, if favorable, Local Government - Land Use, Planning and Development, if favorable, Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House March 15, 2021 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AND REQUIRE CERTAIN TIME LINES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY BUILDING PLANS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TO ESTABLISH REMEDIES FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY REVIEW PLANS SUBMITTED UNDER THE EXPERTISE OF A LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
*H291-v-1* General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2021 d.
*H291-v-2* General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2021 e.
(b) Upon the acceptance and approval receipt of a signed written document by the local government as required under subsection (a) of this section, or upon issuance of a permit under subsection (c1) of this section, notwithstanding the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the local government, its inspection department, and the inspectors are discharged and released from any liabilities, duties, and responsibilities imposed by this Article with respect to or in common law from any claim arising out of or attributed to the component or element in the construction of the building for which the signed written document was submitted.submittedsubmitted. or permit was issued.
(c1) Notwithstandinganyprovisionoflawtothecontrary,forcommercialNotwithstandinganyprovisionoflawto andmultifamilythecontrary, buildingfor planscommercialplans submitted that require a design professional seal pursuant to Building Code Council rules, initial plan review shall be completed and a building permit decision issued within 2115 days.
During the initial 21-day15-dayperiod, period, the local government or its agents shall communicate with the design professional to resolve questions and issues with the submitted plan.
If the local government requests additional information or requires that the plan be resubmitted with changes, the local government shall review the requested information or resubmitted plan and issue a building permit decision within 15 days from the receipt of the requested information or resubmitted plan.
(c2) In the event that the local government determinesdoes thatnot itissue isa unablepermit tofor complete the initialsubmitted plan review within 2130 days,days theof localinitial governmentplan maysubmission, utilizeor, theif Departmentadditional ofinformation Insuranceor andplan itsresubmission marketplaceis poolrequested, ofwithin qualified15 Code-enforcementdays officialsof orthe contractreceipt withof athe third-partyinformation engineeringor firmresubmitted thatplan, possessesthe afollowing validshall certificateapply: under G.S.
143-151.13 to perform the initial plan review provided that the total time for the initial plan review does not exceed the 21 days required under subsection (c1) of this section.
(c3) The following shall apply (i) if the local government does not issue a building permit decisionforthesubmittedplanwithin21daysofinitialplansubmissionasprovidedinsubsection (c1) of this section or (ii) when additional information or a plan resubmission is requested and the local government does not issue a building permit decision within 15 days of the receipt of the additional information or resubmitted plan as provided in subsection (c1) of this section:
(2) The permit applicant may utilizeretain thea Departmentthird-party offirm Insuranceto andreview itsthe marketplacesubmitted poolplans, ofand qualifiedthe Code-enforcementcost officialsof orthe hire a third-party engineeringreview firmshall thatbe possessesreimbursed aby validthe certificatelocal undergovernment. G.S.
143-151.13Upon to review and approveapproval by the submittedthird plans.party, the local government shall issue all necessary permits for the project within 72 hours.
TheIn costthe ofevent the third-partylocal reviewgovernment performedor byits theagents Departmentrequire ofspecifications Insuranceor manufacturer engineering information on an element, component, or afixture third-partyrelated engineeringto firmthe submitted plan, the local government shall beobtain reimbursedthat byinformation from the localmanufacturerofthe government.element,component, or fixture.
Upon review and approval by the third party, the local government shall issue all necessary building permits for the project within 72 hours.
(c4) In the event the local government or its agents require specifications or manufacturer engineering information on an element, component, or fixture related to the submitted plan, the local government shall obtain that information from the manufacturerofthe element,component, Page 2 House Bill 291-Second Edition General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2021 or fixture.
(c5) In the event that a local government's ordinance conflicts with anypart of this section, the provisions of this section shall supersede and preempt any ordinance adopted or imposed by the local government.
The term does not include a system." Page 2 House Bill 291-First Edition General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2021 SECTION 2.
G.S.
143-151.12(9) reads as rewritten:
"(9) Establish within the Department of Insurance a marketplace pool of qualified Code-enforcement officials available for the following purposes:
a.
When requested by the Insurance Commissioner, to assist in the discharge of the Commissioner's duty under G.S.
143-139 to supervise, administer, and enforce the North Carolina State Building Code.
… c.
When requested by a building permit applicant under G.S.
160D-1106(c3)(2)." SECTION 3.
G.S.
143-151.13 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
"(g) An engineer who possesses a valid certificate under subsection (f) of this section, but is not employed by the State or a local government, may utilize that certificate for the limited purpose of performing initial plan reviews as permitted under G.S.
160D-1106(c2) and (c3)." SECTION 4.
House Bill 291-Second291-First Edition Page 3
Compared against the N.C. General Statutes as published AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.
The bill establishes new requirements and processes for the review and approval of commercial and multifamily building plans, facilitating faster approvals and the use of third-party reviewers.
-
G.S. 143-151.13
(g) An architect or engineer who possesses a valid certificate under subsection (f) of this section, but is not employed by the State or a local government, may utilize that certificate for the limited purpose of performing initial plan reviews as permitted under G.S. 160D-1104.2(b) and (c).
This provision allows certified architects or engineers to conduct initial plan reviews for specific buildings, thereby broadening the scope of those eligible to perform such reviews.
-
G.S. 143-151.12(9)
(9) Establish within the Department of Insurance a marketplace pool of qualified Code-enforcement officials available for the following purposes: a. When requested by the Insurance Commissioner, to assist in the discharge of the Commissioner's duty under G.S. 143-139 to supervise, administer, and enforce the North Carolina State Building Code.→ (9) Establish within the Department of Insurance a marketplace pool of qualified Code-enforcement officials available for the following purposes: a. When requested by the Insurance Commissioner, to assist in the discharge of the Commissioner's duty under G.S. 143-139 to supervise, administer, and enforce the North Carolina State Building Code. c. When requested under G.S. 160D-1104.2.This change adds a new purpose to the marketplace pool of Code-enforcement officials, allowing them to assist with the newly established plan review procedures.
Action History
-
Withdrawn From Com
-
Re-ref to Judiciary. If fav, re-ref to Rules and Operations of the Senate
-
Reptd Fav Com Substitute
-
Com Substitute Adopted
-
Re-ref Com On State and Local Government
-
Withdrawn From Com
-
Re-ref to Commerce and Insurance. If fav, re-ref to State and Local Government. If fav, re-ref to Rules and Operations of the Senate
-
Regular Message Sent To Senate
-
Regular Message Received From House
-
Passed 1st Reading
-
Ref To Com On Rules and Operations of the Senate
-
Passed 2nd Reading
-
Passed 3rd Reading
-
Reptd Fav Com Sub 2
-
Re-ref Com On Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House
-
Reptd Fav
-
Cal Pursuant Rule 36(b)
-
Placed On Cal For 05/10/2021
-
Reptd Fav Com Substitute
-
Re-ref Com On Local Government - Land Use, Planning and Development
-
Passed 1st Reading
-
Ref to the Com on Regulatory Reform, if favorable, Local Government - Land Use, Planning and Development, if favorable, Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House
-
Filed
Sponsors
- Jeff Zenger · Primary
- Larry W. Potts · Primary
- Mark Brody · Cosponsor
- Carter · Cosponsor
- Kyle Hall · Cosponsor
- Kelly E. Hastings · Cosponsor
- Jeffrey C. McNeely · Cosponsor
- Donna McDowell White · Cosponsor
- Matthew Winslow · Cosponsor
- Zachary · Cosponsor
- Jake Johnson · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →2 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 168 not signed on · 22 voted No
Sponsors (2)
- Jeff Zenger Republican
- Larry W. Potts Republican
Co-sponsors (9)
- Mark Brody Republican
- Carter
- Kyle Hall Republican
- Kelly E. Hastings Republican
- Jeffrey C. McNeely Republican
- Donna McDowell White Republican
- Matthew Winslow Republican
- Zachary
- Jake Johnson Republican
Not signed on (168)
168 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 168 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 7 | 19 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 30 | 13 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 42 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| U | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 79 | 33 | 0 | 8 |
| % of votes cast | 66% | 28% | 0% | 7% |
How each member voted (120)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Clemmons | — | Yea |
| Farkas | — | Yea |
| Graham | — | Yea |
| Harris | — | Yea |
| Hunter | — | Yea |
| Hurtado | — | Yea |
| Lucas | — | Yea |
| Richardson | — | Yea |
| Wray | — | Yea |
| Boles | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Bumgardner | — | Yea |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Cleveland | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Elmore | — | Yea |
| Faircloth | — | Yea |
| Hurley | — | Yea |
| Johnson | — | Yea |
| McElraft | — | Yea |
| McNeill | — | Yea |
| Mills | — | Yea |
| Moore | — | Yea |
| Rogers | — | Yea |
| Saine | — | Yea |
| Sasser | — | Yea |
| Szoka | — | Yea |
| Yarborough | — | Yea |
| Autry | — | Nay |
| Cooper-Suggs | — | Nay |
| Fisher | — | Nay |
| Gailliard | — | Nay |
| Garrison | — | Nay |
| Gill | — | Nay |
| Hunt | — | Nay |
| Insko | — | Nay |
| Martin | — | Nay |
| Terry | — | Nay |
| vonHaefen | — | Nay |
| Hardister | — | Not Voting |
| Zachary | — | Not Voting |
| C. Smith | — | Yea |
| K. Baker | — | Yea |
| K. Smith | — | Nay |
| R. Smith | — | Nay |
| Abe Jones | Democratic | Yea |
| Allison A. Dahle | Democratic | Nay |
| Amber M. Baker | Democratic | Nay |
| Amos L. Quick, III | Democratic | Nay |
| Becky Carney | Democratic | Yea |
| Brandon Lofton | Democratic | Nay |
| Brian Turner | Democratic | Yea |
| Carolyn G. Logan | Democratic | Nay |
| Cecil Brockman | Democratic | Nay |
| Cynthia Ball | Democratic | Nay |
| Dante Pittman | Democratic | Yea |
| Deb Butler | Democratic | Nay |
| Eric Ager | Democratic | Yea |
| Gale Adcock | Democratic | Nay |
| Garland E. Pierce | Democratic | Nay |
| Graig Meyer | Democratic | Nay |
| James Roberson | Democratic | Nay |
| Joe John | Democratic | Yea |
| Marcia Morey | Democratic | Nay |
| Mary Belk | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Pricey Harrison | Democratic | Nay |
| Robert T. Reives, II | Democratic | Nay |
| Shelly Willingham | Democratic | Yea |
| Terence Everitt | Democratic | Nay |
| Terry M. Brown Jr. | Democratic | Nay |
| Vernetta Alston | Democratic | Nay |
| Zack Hawkins | Democratic | Nay |
| Ben T. Moss, Jr. | Republican | Yea |
| Bobby Hanig | Republican | Yea |
| Brenden H. Jones | Republican | Yea |
| Charles W. Miller | Republican | Yea |
| Chris Humphrey | Republican | Not Voting |
| David Willis | Republican | Yea |
| Dean Arp | Republican | Yea |
| Dennis Riddell | Republican | Yea |
| Destin Hall | Republican | Yea |
| Diane Wheatley | Republican | Yea |
| Donna McDowell White | Republican | Yea |
| Donny Lambeth | Republican | Yea |
| Dudley Greene | Republican | Yea |
| Edward C. Goodwin | Republican | Yea |
| Erin Paré | Republican | Yea |
| Frank Iler | Republican | Yea |
| Harry Warren | Republican | Yea |
| Howard Penny, Jr. | Republican | Yea |
| Hugh Blackwell | Republican | Yea |
| Jay Adams | Republican | Yea |
| Jeff Zenger | Republican | Yea |
| Jeffrey C. McNeely | Republican | Yea |
| Jimmy Dixon | Republican | Yea |
| John A. Torbett | Republican | Yea |
| John R. Bell, IV | Republican | Not Voting |
| John Sauls | Republican | Yea |
| Julia C. Howard | Republican | Yea |
| Karl E. Gillespie | Republican | Yea |
| Keith Kidwell | Republican | Yea |
| Kelly E. Hastings | Republican | Yea |
| Kyle Hall | Republican | Yea |
| Larry C. Strickland | Republican | Yea |
| Larry W. Potts | Republican | Yea |
| Mark Brody | Republican | Yea |
| Mark Pless | Republican | Yea |
| Matthew Winslow | Republican | Yea |
| Mike Clampitt | Republican | Yea |
| Mitchell S. Setzer | Republican | Yea |
| Phil Shepard | Republican | Yea |
| Ray Pickett | Republican | Yea |
| Sam Watford | Republican | Yea |
| Sarah Stevens | Republican | Yea |
| Steve Tyson | Republican | Not Voting |
| Timothy D. Moffitt | Republican | Yea |
| W. Ted Alexander | Republican | Not Voting |
| William D. Brisson | Republican | Yea |
| Carla D. Cunningham | U | Not Voting |
| Nasif Majeed | U | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors HB 291?
- HB 291 is sponsored by Jeff Zenger (Republican), Larry W. Potts (Republican), Mark Brody (Republican), Carter, Kyle Hall (Republican), Kelly E. Hastings (Republican), Jeffrey C. McNeely (Republican), Donna McDowell White (Republican), Matthew Winslow (Republican), Zachary, and Jake Johnson (Republican).
- What is the current status of HB 291?
- This bill died with 2021-2022 Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track HB 291?
- Track HB 291 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 291
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 291
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →