Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Arizona committee rejects bill to remove 1,000‑sq‑ft cap on accessory dwelling units

Arizona House Appropriations Committee · February 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of public testimony from cities, neighborhood groups and the bill sponsor, the Appropriations Committee voted 8–9–1 to defeat HB 40‑28, which would have removed the 1,000 sq ft cap and altered setback and elevation rules for ADUs.

The Arizona House Appropriations Committee voted down House Bill 40‑28 after extended testimony from municipal officials, neighborhood associations and the bill sponsor. The measure would have removed a 1,000-square‑foot ceiling on accessory dwelling units and limited municipal review of ADU placement and elevation. The sponsor framed the bill as a pro–property‑rights response to how some municipalities interpret existing law and said the change would let homeowners place ADUs where they best fit.

Opponents — including the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, neighborhood associations and residents — said the change would permit ADUs that are effectively standalone houses, increase density without regard to parking or infrastructure, risk fire‑access problems on smaller lots and open the door to speculative development or short‑term rentals. “This bill is ADUs on steroids,” Susan Edwards told the committee, arguing it could accelerate conversions to out‑of‑state investor ownership and short‑term rental uses.

League witness Nick Ponder said the 2024 ADU law was the product of lengthy negotiations; he warned HB40‑28 would undo parts of that compromise and reduce local control. Several members voiced concern about unclear language on setbacks and elevation limits. The sponsor offered to pursue additional stakeholder meetings and possible committee amendments.

Roll call produced eight yeses, nine noes and one present, and the chair announced the bill failed to pass the committee. Several members called for continued stakeholder engagement before any future attempt.