Bill Description: Senate Bill 1354 would limit larger cities from prohibiting accessory dwelling units.
Rating: +1
NOTE: This bill is related to Senate Bill 1277 (2026), but it applies only to cities with a population over 10,000, not to smaller towns or counties.
Amendment Note: The Senate amendment made several changes to the bill, most notably increasing the population threshold from 5,000 to 10,000. It also added more excuses for cities to restrict property rights. The amendment made a bill that was already very limited in scope even more limited. The rating has not changed.
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Senate Bill 1352 would create Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, to prohibit a city with a population over 10,000 from banning accessory dwelling units in any residential zoning area within its jurisdiction.
It would also require such cities to amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to remove obstacles to building an accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot.
An exception would be created for “lands falling within an area defined as a historic district” and the law would not apply to small towns with a population below 10,000 or to counties, so they could still limit or prohibit accessory dwelling units on lots where single-family homes are allowed.
Existing HOA restrictions or prohibitions on ADUs would remain enforceable, but if an HOA wanted to add new restrictions, it would need to get the owner of the affected property to expressly agree in writing to such addition or amendment of a covenant, condition, or restriction.
Allowing property owners to develop their land based on market demand rather than the preferences of central planners is positive, and this bill takes a small step in that direction. Unfortunately, only applying the law to larger cities would limit its practical application in expanding property rights.
(+1)
