Well, lookey there!  No new land use bills nor any revisions to the major bills appeared at the end of the week, but thanks to the eagle-eyed League staff, another bill I didn’t even bother checking earlier in the session because of its innocuous name (Education Entity Amendments) has a land use provision lurking within.  The bill is SB166 – Education Entity Amendments.

Existing language in LUDMA stipulates that charter schools are to be considered permitted uses in all zoning districts – see 10-9a-305 and 17-27a-305 item (7).  This bill would add to that list micro-education entity and home-based education entity.  What are those?  Well, the bill does not provide a definition in LUDMA for them, nor does it reference another location in state code for that.  But elsewhere in the bill, in the Public Education-Local Administration Title (53G), it does define them.  It says:

“Micro-education entity” means a person or association of persons that, for compensation, provides education services to 150 students or fewer.

“Home-based education entity” means a person or association of persons that, for compensation, provides education services to 25 or fewer students from their primary residential dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, or residential property.
(b) “Home-based education entity” includes:
(i) a tutoring service;
(ii) an education cooperative; and
(iii) extracurricular lessons.

So, does that mean that pre-schools, which many communities list and treat as conditional uses, are now included in this definition?  Not clear.  How does a micro-education entity differ from a charter school?  In terms of governance and structure, quite a bit.  In terms of land use, not so much.

Now here’s the odd part, again.  This bill puts this provision only in the county’s LUDMA.  There is no corresponding change to the municipal LUDMA.  That is very strange.  It would seem to me that most of these entities would wind up locating in cities rather than in unincorporated county areas.  So we have the flip side of what has happened earlier in one of the major land use bills.  Again the question is, was this an oversight (that’s my vote)?  Was it good lobbying on the part of the League?  Does no one want to put one of these in a city?  I’m guessing we’ll see some amendments to this bill before it’s done.