On November 18 the Local Government Subcommittee of the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee held a rare off-season hearing to examine House Bill 812, a piece of legislation that seeks to reshape how cities and counties regulate building codes and issue land disturbance permits (LDPs). The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Cheokas (R-Americus), signals a renewed interest in land use reform as a means of addressing housing affordability and supply issues.
The decision to hold this ad hoc hearing outside of the normal calendar underscores the urgency with which some lawmakers and industry groups are treating this issue. For Georgia cities, the proposal raises important questions about maintaining the local flexibility necessary to ensure safety, protect natural resources, and respond to community-specific needs.
Augmenting the Code Amendment Process
Section One of this legislation modifies the process for adopting local amendments to state minimum building codes. Under current law, local governments are allowed to adopt amendments to reflect regional differences in climate, soil, or development patterns, without requiring formal approval from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). However, HB 812 would require the State Codes Advisory Committee, a sub-entity of DCA, to approve or deny each local amendment.
While the bill technically allows cities and counties to “override” a denial from the state, it would require DCA to maintain a permanent record of those decisions. Many local government officials have expressed concern that this would create a burdensome and politicized “call and response” process that would inject unnecessary friction into a system that already functions efficiently.
“These proposed inefficiencies would impugn local governments’ ability to enact local priorities in a timely manner—priorities that are often rooted in performance and safety, and cognizant of our cities varied topography, climatology, and infrastructure challenges,” said GMA’s Noah Roenitz who testified before the subcommittee.
Enhacing the Permit Shot-Clock
Sections Two and Three of HB 812 propose revisions to the existing “shot clock” for land disturbance permits (LDPs).
Currently, around 240 cities in Georgia act as the Local Issuing Authority (LIA) for LDPs. These cities only do so to expedite the process, and are required to adhere to state training and standards in order to retain the LIA title. That title means city governments themselves are the enforcers of federal regulations, and state laws regarding erosion and soil control laws, storm water pollution protections, and other environmental measures mandated by federal and state policy makers.
Current law states that local governments have 45 days to issue or deny a land disturbance permit, but that timeline resets if the applicant submits an incomplete or noncompliant plan. HB 812 would revise the process by keeping the 45-day review but adds that if the applicant resubmits a corrected version, addressing only the cited issues, the local government must complete the second review and issue a permit within 14 days.
Additionally, the bill would require that any denial or “non-acceptance” of a permit include a written list of specific reasons with citations to local, state, or federal law. Supporters of the bill, including the Home Builders Association of Georgia (HBAG), argue that these reforms are essential to streamline development and address housing shortages. “I’ve heard horror stories of the length of time it takes for contractors to get a building permit,” added said Rep. Cheokas. “This is one of the many things we can do to address affordable housing.”
Pushback from Local Governments and Environmental Advocates
Local officials and environmental groups pushed back against the proposal, arguing that it risks oversimplifying the permit process and weakening critical safeguards.
Katie Parker, a development approval administrator from Cherokee County, described challenges her staff faces when reviewing complex or incomplete submittals. She noted one applicant submitted plans with the wrong jurisdiction’s name on them. “This bill assumes we’re holding things up on purpose,” she said. “In reality, we’re often cleaning up mistakes from rushed or poorly prepared plans.”
Roenitz from GMA echoed that point, noting that large national development firms now dominate the market, often submitting sprawling plans that lack detail. “The permitting process is not being used as a weapon” he said. “It’s being followed—the processes have to comply with the ever increasing complexity.”
Environmental groups raised concerns that faster timelines could lead to unchecked erosion and pollution. One speaker noted that sediment from construction sites is already a leading pollutant in Georgia rivers. “Tighter deadlines without more staff just mean things fall through the cracks,” they warned.
The Path Forward
With the 2026 legislative session approaching, the hearing served as both a warning shot and a temperature check. Lawmakers, builders, cities, and conservationists are all bracing for a more extensive debate when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.
The sponsors of HB 812 have made clear their goal is to remove what they see as regulatory bottlenecks in the path to housing development and homeownership. Local governments, in turn, are calling for a more nuanced approach—one that balances statewide goals while preserving the ability of cities and counties to uphold safety, environmental quality, and community priorities.
As one observer noted after the hearing, the debate is no longer about whether housing regulation should be reformed—it’s about who gets to decide how.