Yesterday was legislative interim day.  There will be only one more interim day before things really gear up for the 2025 legislative session.  As we get close to the session, we find ourselves in much the same situation of the last couple of years where there are no bills drafted yet dealing with the major housing and land use issues – with one exception (talk about that shortly).  There are outlines of the likely topics that will be the subject of bills, but no specifics yet.

The Economic Development and Workforce Services interim committee heard reports on the state of the housing market in Utah, and then a report from Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, co-chair of the Commission on Housing Affordability, on the topics that will likely be addressed in bills this upcoming session.  Nothing new to report there, it was all pretty much the same as what was discussed in the CHA meeting last week.  One of the committee members made a comment, though, which I found particularly relevant.  He said the state has been successful in working to make the state economy one of the best in the nation, one that attracts many people to move into the state for economic opportunity.  And then we talk about how we have a housing crisis, with not enough homes being built to meet the demands of our growing population.  There’s a distinct disconnect there, he said, that needs to be addressed.  We can’t continue to grow our economy and attract new people if there aren’t affordable places to live.  Touche.

In the afternoon, the Political Subdivisions interim committee heard and discussed a couple of bills proposed by Rep. Ray Ward dealing with housing affordability.  You may recall in the last legislative session, Rep. Ward introduced a bill that would have allowed a “starter home” on a lot as small as 5,300 sq. ft. in any residential zone in all “urban municipalities.”  Rep. Ward had not been involved in the ongoing work in the CHA, the UEOC or the Land Use Task Force, making his bill a surprise to all those who had been.  For that reason and due to issues with the language and technicalities of the bill, it did not go anywhere during the session.  This year, Rep. Ward is proposing similar actions, and has had two bills drafted.  As he stated during his presentation to the committee yesterday, his intent is to get feedback and comment as he continues to pursue the concept.

Ward’s first draft bill would define what an “affordable house” is, and would make it a permitted use in all residential zones in all “urban municipalities.”  It would allow the house to be built on lots as small as 3,500 sq. ft, and sets a number of minimum design standards such as setbacks, building height, and parking spaces.  The bill would also allow ADUs, both internal and external, to be built on any existing residential lot in urban municipalities.

The second bill is much shorter, simply stating that a detached single family home (no affordability standards apply) is allowed on a lot of any size in all residential zones in all urban municipalities.  In essence, the bill would do away with minimum lot size requirements in zoning in all urban municipalities.  The bill would also allow ADUs on all residential lots on which a home exists.

The bills do a couple of other things, but these are the real highlights.  Rep. Ward explained his rationale for making such proposals, which you can see in this KSL news story.  Ward explained to the committee that these bills are intended at this point to garner comment and discussion, which they clearly did with the interim committee members.

Committee co-chair Jim Dunnigan was one of the first and most vocal to comment, saying,

“I think that just destroys my subdivision,” Dunnigan said of allowing new accessory units to be built in existing neighborhoods. “I just do not want my neighbor to build another home in his front yard or right next to my backyard when that’s not what I bought when I moved in there.”

Several of the comments from committee members alluded to the issue of adequate infrastructure for areas where the increased number of housing units may not now be adequate.  In particular, parking was brought up as being a potential problem, particularly with ADUs.

Several other committee members talked about being generally in favor of the overall concept of increasing housing units, but not to include detailed standards for such units in the state code.  They voiced the thought that communities are different and each ought to still have the ability to tailor such standards to their particular community characteristics.

Cameron Diehl, the Utah League’s executive director, saying that while the League membership has not yet had the opportunity to see the particulars of these proposed bills, in general League membership feels that local land use development should be considered and decided at the local level.

“Generally speaking, we oppose legislation that preempts the authority of local governments to plan and zone their communities,” said executive director Cameron Diehl, while noting the League had not yet formally taken a position on Ward’s proposal.

Diehl also said it’s unfair to say that past housing legislation hasn’t worked.

“We’ve passed a lot in the last few years, and we’re just now starting to see the fruits of those labors,” Diehl said.

Plenty to consider here.  Rep. Ward has asked for comments and input, so please, if you have thoughts on these bills, share them!