HB 369 is simple: it stops local governments from requiring a minimum number of parking spaces when developers build. It also makes modifications to stormwater regulations on redevelopment sites.
Representative Donnie Loftis of Gaston County sponsored the bill after talking with staff from the Catawba Riverkeepers. Although it started as an environmental bill, developers and housing advocates are also pleased with the proposal.
"There's a waste of asphalt. There's a huge collection of water runoff storm water that gets into the creeks and streams that's not necessarily needed," Loftis explained. "We worked on a plan on how to address that, and most of the parking requirements were based on square footage of the building or number of bedrooms in the home or the apartment."
Loftis said he also found the economic benefits interesting. He referenced a video out of Dallas, Texas, that showed the negative impacts of parking requirements on small businesses.
Loftis offered the story of a small cheesecake store, "who needed five parking spots for his business, required by the city of Dallas, and he only had three," he explained. "He had to shut down his business because he could not meet the parking minimums."
"When I hear stories like that, I didn't even realize the impact to small business that a parking requirement minimum could impact in North Carolina," he added.
Parking minimums have a big impact on housing costs, too.
Stephanie Watkins Cruz from the North Carolina Housing Coalition said it’s rare that housing and environmentalists are on the same page — but in this case, protecting the environment saves on development costs.
“A surface parking lot, each space is about five to $10,000, and that adds to development costs, and for a market rate development that might not mean much, but when it comes to affordable housing, it could actually mean the development does not happen," she said.
Reducing surface parking lots also prevents water runoff, which can contaminate waterways and increase flooding.
The bill is moving through committees this week, and most recently was revised to exempt historic districts.
