Committee amends bill to expand specific plans to municipalities and residential uses; amendment on housing language splits vote

At a meeting of the House Local Government Committee, members voted to report House Bill 1532, a measure that would expand the Municipalities Planning Code to allow individual municipalities to adopt “specific plans” and to authorize those plans for both residential and nonresidential developments.

Chairman Freeman said the measure responds to housing‑availability concerns and recalled a recommendation from the state planning board to broaden specific‑plan authority. The bill would authorize a municipality (or a county or multmunicipal comprehensive plan) to adopt a specific plan that implements portions of a comprehensive plan; when a specific plan is adopted, applicants for subdivision or land development approval must participate in a pre‑application conference and submit a final plan consistent with the adopted specific plan.

Committee amendment A010433, offered by Chairman Freeman, clarified that enumerated provisions must be included in a specific plan rather than left optional; removed mandatory language requiring housing densities for households at various income levels; and added a permissive provision allowing a specific plan’s housing standards to include the availability of affordable or below‑market housing. The amendment passed on a roll call of 14‑12.

Representative Miller said he raised concerns that including housing standards could invite inclusionary‑zoning claims; he indicated he would vote no on the legislation as reported if the compulsory language remained. Representative Fleming said his earlier amendments were substantially reflected in A010433 but he still planned to vote no because he believed some language risked inclusionary‑zoning issues despite the change to a permissive housing provision.

Other chairman amendments (for example striking the word “intensity”) were added by voice vote after staff explanation that statutory drafting already addressed number/plurality issues via the Statutory Construction Act. Several proposed amendments were withdrawn during committee consideration following sponsor discussion.

The committee reported the bill to the floor; an initial roll call on the bill showed a 14‑12 result on an amendment, and after a correction that Representative Kuzma intended to vote yes the final committee report was 15‑11 in favor of reporting the bill. Members noted the bill does not change existing multi‑municipal planning agreements but gives an additional tool for municipalities to implement comprehensive plans.