Revise county zoning to allow accessory dwelling units
The bill will significantly impact zoning regulations across Montana, effectively streamlining how local governments handle the approval of accessory dwelling units. It restricts counties from imposing burdensome regulations, such as requiring additional parking or preventing specific designs for ADUs. By doing so, SB532 encourages the construction of more housing options and responds to ongoing demands for affordable living spaces. While counties can charge a fee for application reviews, these fees are capped at $250, promoting accessibility to homeowners wishing to expand their properties.
Senate Bill 532 focuses on revising county zoning laws in Montana to facilitate the establishment of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The bill requires counties to permit a minimum of one ADU on lots or parcels containing single-family dwellings without excessive restrictions. It specifies that these units can be attached, detached, or located within the main dwelling. The legislation aims to address housing shortages by simplifying the process for creating smaller, self-contained living spaces that are more affordable and flexible for residents.
The sentiment surrounding SB532 appears to be largely positive, as it receives bipartisan support focused on enhancing housing availability. Advocates emphasize the bill’s potential to alleviate overcrowding and high housing costs by promoting diverse living arrangements. However, some concerns persist regarding potential impacts on neighborhood character and infrastructure strain as ADUs proliferate. Critics may argue that without careful oversight, increased density could lead to complications within existing communities.
A notable point of contention involves the balance of local governance versus state mandates. While SB532 aims to facilitate housing development, there are discussions about whether state intervention in local zoning processes could undermine community autonomy. Some local officials may feel that the prescribed limitations on their regulatory powers could hinder their ability to make decisions that best serve their specific communities, prompting a potential clash between state objectives and local governance.