Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Commerce tussles over SB 90; committee re‑refers the bill after tied votes and debate on local control
Summary
Senate Bill 90 — a bid to redefine commercial zoning to permit residential uses above ground‑floor commercial uses — drew extended debate about local control and was ultimately re‑referred by the Commerce Committee for further review after a tied initial showing and reconsideration.
Senate Bill 90, which would expand residential use in commercially zoned areas, prompted an extended debate in the Senate Commerce Committee over the balance between encouraging housing and preserving local land‑use control. After divided committee discussion and a tied tally in an initial vote, the committee ultimately voted to re‑refer the bill for further study.
Senator Murphy, speaking for the bill, urged the committee to allow developers and individuals the ability to create residential units near jobs and services, describing the measure as a way to build vibrant, walkable communities and reduce vehicle trips. He argued that modern planning recognizes the harms of strict single‑use zoning.
Opponents warned the change would erode local control and expose communities to unintended consequences. Senator Ricciardi and others argued local planning and zoning boards should retain authority to control ground‑floor commercial integrity and prevent the loss of future commercial capacity, citing potential fiscal and service‑capacity impacts.
Several members suggested re‑referring the bill to give municipalities and committee members more time to examine related deregulation proposals and potential cumulative effects on parking, wastewater and community services. The committee initially appeared equally divided on an ought‑to‑pass recommendation; after a motion for reconsideration later in the session, senators voted to re‑refer SB 90 with the expectation sponsors could present refined amendments on the floor.
Outcome: after reconsideration, the committee approved a motion to re‑refer SB 90 for further review. The committee’s action will allow the sponsor to offer a floor amendment and to refine the measure before a final Senate vote.
Votes at a glance - SB 26 — Amendment adopted; SB 26 as amended recommended to pass (committee voice votes recorded during committee business). - SB 55 — Motion of “Inexpedient to Legislate” adopted (committee voice vote), effectively ending this bill’s progress out of committee. - SB 85 — Committee adopted amendment 0413 and recommended passage of SB 85 (voice vote). - SB 163 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote). - SB 165 — Committee recommended passage and placed on consent (voice vote). - SB 166 — Committee recorded an ought‑to‑pass recommendation and placed the bill on consent (voice vote). - SB 167 — Replace‑all amendment debated; committee voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) (motion carried, voice vote). - SB 169 — Recommended to pass; sponsor to take bill out for further consideration (voice vote). - SB 172 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote). - SB 173 — Re‑referred by committee (voice vote). - SB 174 — Committee recommended passage (ought to pass 4–2 recorded in transcript) and placed on consent; sponsor will take it out. - SB 175 — Committee voted to re‑refer (voice vote). - SB 170 — (See separate report) Committee amended and recommended passage as amended. - SB 281–284 — A series of housing‑related bills (committee amendments adopted for SB 281 and SB 282; SB 283 and SB 284 recommended to pass; SB 284 drew one opposed vote and was not placed on consent).
Several other bills were considered and either placed on consent calendars or taken out for additional floor consideration. Where the transcript records only a voice vote, no roll‑call tally was available.
