One of the awaited major land use bills showed up today. It is SB181 – Housing Affordability Amendments, sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a co-chair of the Commission on Housing Affordability.

As we’ve noted in previous posts, one of the touted top issues that would be addressed by the legislature this year would be parking standards and regulations.  While this bill does not address established parking minimums, it does deal with what is allowable to meet residential parking minimums, including space for vehicles in garages and carports, on driveways, and tandem parking. It also defines the size dimensions for a parking space, making that the state-defined parking space standards in local ordinances as well.

There are several other specific provisions on parking, all of which are placed in the LUDMA section which prohibits regulation of building design standards.  It also includes a definition of affordable housing in this section.  I’m not really sure why that definition is included, because the term “affordable housing” is not used anywhere else in the section.

The major thing this bill does is completely revamp the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, repealing it and recreating it as the Olene Walker State Housing Fund and the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund.

We’ve noted in previous postings to expect bills that come out of the blue dealing with land use and housing issues, and one of those also showed up today.  It is SB179 – Local Regulation of Business Entities Amendments.  The bill would install an entirely new section in LUDMA, Section 507.5 (506.5 in counties), Classification of New and Unlisted Business Uses.

Essentially the bill stipulates a process for local governments to follow when a business type that is not specifically included in their list of permitted uses is applied for, to make a determination of whether it is similar to other permitted uses, or to petition for inclusion as a new specific permitted use.  Frankly, to me, this bill is superfluous and not needed.  It sets forth a process that many, if not all, local governments already follow as a way to interpret the provisions of their code, or to make a legislative change to the code.  The only thing I saw in this bill that would be different or prescriptive from what many locals already do is that it would require the decision to be made within 60 days.