Religious institutions; development; allowed use
The bill mandates that developments must not be within seventy-five feet of any neighboring site and must include parking provisions, comply with local utility access requirements, and adhere to various setbacks and height restrictions. The legislation also prevents counties from imposing additional restrictions beyond those specified in the bill, thus centralizing authority and potentially diminishing local zoning powers. This could lead to increased residential construction within areas traditionally reserved for religious institutions, possibly impacting local housing markets and community dynamics.
House Bill 2191 proposes amendments to the Arizona Revised Statutes to establish regulations for developments initiated by religious institutions in areas zoned for single-family residential use. The bill stipulates that any housing development constructed by a religious institution on eligible sites will be considered an allowed use, regardless of local zoning ordinances. This is significant as it allows religious institutions to develop residential housing without needing to comply with local zoning requirements, provided they meet certain criteria laid out in the bill.
Sentiment around HB 2191 appears mixed, with some supporting it as a means to facilitate housing development through the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, which could be beneficial in addressing housing shortages. However, there are concerns from various stakeholders regarding the potential for increased congestion, changes in neighborhood character, and reduced local control over land use decisions. The dialogue indicates a conflict between state-level facilitation of development and local governance wishes.
Notable points of contention center around the extent of local governance power being curtailed by state legislation. Critics argue that religious institutions wielding development rights in residential zones without local discretion could lead to unintended consequences, such as overcrowding and strain on local resources. Proponents, however, see it as an opportunity to enhance community offerings and address housing needs while leveraging the established presence and resources of religious organizations.