Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing department asks lawmakers to clarify S.133 language, warns proposed report may duplicate ongoing work
Summary
Alex, staff with the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee April 29 that sections 3 and 4 of S.133 would task his department with two reports but that the bill’s use of the term "inclusionary zoning" may be inaccurate and that sponsors may intend a residential "density" tool.
Alex, staff with the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee April 29 that sections 3 and 4 of S.133 would task his department with two reports but that the bill’s language needs clarification. "I think the use of the term inclusionary zoning in here might not be accurate given what she's looking for," Alex said, recommending the committee consider the framing as a "residential development density tool."
Alex described one example offered in conversations with the bill sponsor: where a project shrinks its developable parcel and sets aside conserved land, the remaining developable portion could be eligible for a density bonus so the developer can build more units on the smaller footprint. "She's looking for perhaps a methodology for operating density bonus," Alex said, describing the policy concept discussed with the sponsor.
Alex also said the department is starting a separate effort — referred to in committee discussion as "home scroll phase 3" — that will produce preapproved residential design packages municipalities could adopt to streamline permitting. Alex warned the S.133 report request could be redundant with phase 3 work and asked the committee for more direction on the intended users (municipalities, developers, or projects receiving state resources) and the specific scope of the requested report.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the tool should operate as a zoning mechanism or as a mechanism tied to state resources and trade-offs. Alex said he is willing to produce the reports but requested clearer written direction and said he would submit formal written testimony.
No committee vote or formal action on S.133 was taken during the April 29 hearing. The chair said the department would be invited to submit written comments and the committee will determine whether the report requirement remains necessary once members have had a chance to reconcile the bill language with the department’s ongoing work.
