Senate committee backs statewide zoning reform bill amid opposition from historic‑district groups

The Senate City, County & Local Affairs Committee voted to give Senate Bill 456 a do‑pass recommendation after hearing more than an hour of testimony for and against a statewide package of zoning changes intended to ease Arkansas’s housing shortage.

Senator Jim Petty, R‑District 29, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the legislation targets what he called a “crisis” in housing availability and affordability across the state. "The crisis is around housing, all types of housing, rental and ownership, housing affordability, and housing availability," Petty said. He repeatedly said the bill “does not eliminate single family zoning” and that the proposal is meant to reduce regulatory barriers that delay construction and raise costs.

The bill would legalize additional housing types and loosen certain local land‑use restrictions statewide, according to Petty and witnesses who testified for the measure. David Warren, senior research analyst at the Institute for Justice, testified in support and summarized the bill’s intent: "We see Senate Bill 456 as a bill that promotes both property rights and economic liberty and more affordable housing." Warren cited national studies and examples from other states — including Montana and Colorado — where state‑level zoning reforms were credited with increasing housing supply.

Opponents — including neighborhood, preservation and municipal groups — urged the committee to reject the bill as written. Cathy Wells, president of the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods, said neighborhood infrastructure and services may not be able to accommodate increased density and warned of absentee landlords and poorly maintained properties. "We agree that we need more housing and more affordable housing. But, we think there's some issues that haven't been overlooked in this bill as it stands," Wells said.

Preserve Arkansas executive director Rachel Patton said the measure, as drafted, weakens local historic protections. "As currently presented, Senate Bill 456 is harmful to historic preservation efforts throughout the state, takes away local control, and severely hampers the effectiveness of municipal zoning," Patton told the committee. Other speakers from Little Rock’s Hillcrest and Governor’s Mansion historic districts echoed concerns about preserving neighborhood character, design review, and the ability of local governments to require compatible new construction.

Municipal officials also opposed the bill’s statewide approach. John Wilkerson, general counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, said the league remains willing to work on housing solutions but that the measure in its current form would limit cities’ ability to tailor land‑use decisions to local conditions.

Petty told the committee he intends to offer amendments in the future to address specific concerns raised in testimony, naming historic‑district protections, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), minimum parking, and guardrails for subdivision development as possible changes. He said scheduling and the availability of stakeholders prevented filing those amendments before the committee hearing and that any changes would return to the legislature for approval.

After discussion, Petty moved a motion for a do‑pass recommendation. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the committee did not record a roll‑call tally. The committee’s action sends the bill forward with a committee recommendation despite the objections raised by preservation groups, neighborhood associations and municipal officials.

The testimony before the committee combined national research cited by proponents — including estimates of Arkansas’s annual home‑building shortfall and studies attributing a share of housing costs to regulation — with local testimony about infrastructure, historic design review, code enforcement and neighborhood character. Proponents stressed that state action can reduce regulatory costs that they say currently add materially to housing prices; opponents argued that uniform statewide rules would produce harmful local outcomes and legal uncertainty.

The sponsor’s office and supporters said they expect to refine the bill in later stages. For now, the committee’s do‑pass recommendation places SB 456 on the Senate calendar for further consideration by the full chamber.