Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes 'ought not to pass' on bill to require municipalities allow density bonuses for workforce housing
Summary
After debate and amendment drafting, the committee recommended 'ought not to pass' on LD 1926, which would require municipalities to allow density bonuses or lower lot sizes for workforce housing in designated areas. Representative Collamore offered an alternative report of 'ought to pass as amended' and submitted amendment language.
Committee analysts presented an amended draft of LD 1926, which would require municipalities to permit density bonuses and alternative minimum lot sizes for workforce housing developments located within designated growth areas, urban compacts, or areas served by centralized water and sewer. The amendment clarifies eligibility criteria, recordkeeping and parking rules and attempts to avoid conflicts with recently enacted municipal parking law.
During extended discussion members raised concerns about circular definitions in the draft (a workforce housing development and a workforce housing unit referring to one another), shoreline and shoreland law exceptions, the legal scope of a state mandate on municipal zoning, and verification of income eligibility for units claiming workforce status. The analyst said circular language would be fixed and recommended clearer drafting to avoid confusion.
Chair Tracy Geer moved an 'ought not to pass' recommendation for LD 1926, a motion seconded by another member. The committee called the roll: Representatives and senators on the committee voted, with the majority supporting 'ought not to pass' and Representative Collamore recording a dissenting 'no' and offering an alternative 'ought to pass as amended' report and proposed amendments. The committee closed the work session for LD 1926 pending any additional amendment drafting and legislative reporting requirements.
