Georgia committee advances HB 812 to tighten permitting timelines, require online permit status and expand third-party reviews

House Governmental Affairs on Thursday reported HB 812 out of committee after members adopted amendments extending some review windows and rejecting a proposal to require local referendums.

The bill, presented by chairman Chokas and staffer Austin Hackney, would require the Department of Community Affairs to publish a statewide list of local amendments to the building code and, beginning Jan. 1, 2027, require local governments that issued more than 250 permits the prior year to maintain a web page showing real‑time status for permit applications. Hackney said the change is intended to give applicants and the public better visibility into ‘‘why nothing’s changed in the last couple weeks’’ on a construction project.

HB 812 also aims to tighten review timelines for land‑disturbance and development permitting. Under the substitute, local issuing authorities must confirm whether an application is complete within five business days; if the jurisdiction does not respond within that period, the filing is ‘‘deemed complete and accepted.’’ Once the completeness clock starts, the bill retains a 45‑day substantive review period for local reviews and sets a 14‑day turnaround for localized corrections to resubmitted applications. The proposal also preserves the pause of the clock when outside state agencies must review an application.

A central point of contention among members was when the 45‑day review ‘‘shot clock’’ restarts after changes to plans and who decides whether a change is ‘‘material.’’ Representative Gullett and other members pressed for clarity after describing repeated iterations and ‘‘moving goalposts’’ that prolong developer carrying costs. Hackney and industry witnesses said the local plan reviewer has historically had that authority; developers and third‑party reviewers said change orders triggered by work outside the staff’s requested revisions are commonly treated as ‘‘material changes’’ and restart the clock.

The substitute also expands the availability of private professional providers—licensed engineers or firms—to perform plan reviews and inspections for land‑disturbance permits, a process some local officials already use for building permits. GMA and ACCG representatives supported transparency and some clarifications but warned that two‑business‑day review windows for certain third‑party submittals may be short and raised questions about memoranda of understanding required with state agencies.

Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and riverkeeper organizations, opposed extending third‑party roles into erosion and sediment (E&S) reviews, citing liability and enforcement concerns. Neil Herring of the Sierra Club warned of increased risk from private review of E&S plans. Supporters from the development community responded that engineers carry professional liability through PE stamps and municipalities ultimately are protected by performance bonds taken at the end of construction.

During the committee session members approved an amendment increasing certain two‑business‑day windows to five days and took up a separate amendment that would have required local governments to adopt the subsection by referendum; that referendum proposal failed. The committee then voted to pass the bill as amended by voice/hand and sent it on its way as a committee‑passed measure.

What happens next: HB 812 will proceed in the House process as a committee‑passed bill; stakeholders signaled they will continue negotiating language on the definition of ‘‘material change,’’ timing for third‑party reviews, and liability language for expanded private roles.