3 ms·
Was the law interpreted differently before? Have people previously claimed that building a single house was a housing development covered by this law, and succe
by skybrian 4y ago
Was the law interpreted differently before? Have people previously claimed that building a single house was a housing development covered by this law, and succeeded, or is it a new kind of legal argument?
- vhold 4y agoThe ruling mentions "There is little caselaw interpreting this statutory definition." in regard to that question. It mentions one case where building 8 residential units was a "housing development project" It then goes into the fact that the law in question refers to a "housing development project" in one of 3 ways, 2 of which definitely don't apply, leaving behind the phrase "Residential units only", which they then point "units" is plural, not singular. So perhaps.. 2 residential units would have been a housing development project.
- AdamTReineke 4y agoThere's also some mention of the original plans calling for an ADU that was removed when the plan was scaled down at the request of the city, so the plaintiff was arguing they should have been covered because it was multi-unit. (If I skimmed it right.)
- fragmede 4y agoIt wasn't mentioned from what I saw, but you seem interested in laws changing; SB9 went into effect Jan. 1, 2022 for the expressed purpose of promoting housing development by allowing landowners to end up with four houses from what used to be a single plot.