Note: Reply directly to this email with your ideas, feedback or objections to the model bill language — I read every response.
For most of American history, nobody needed permission to run a flower shop out of the front room of a house, or to build a bookstore on a residential lot. Neighborhoods grew up around this pattern. The grocer, the barber, the seamstress, and the café weren’t banished to distant commercial strips; they were woven into the streets where people actually lived.
Walk through the oldest parts of almost any American city and you can still see the evidence — the odd storefront embedded in a block of houses, usually grandfathered in decades ago, and often the most beloved building on the street. Or if not an active storefront, unusually large shop windows looking into what is now the living room of a single family house or ground floor apartment.
Then zoning happened. Beginning in the 1920s, cities began separating homes from commerce with almost religious fervor, and the neighborhood business became a legal impossibility. The stores that survived did so as “nonconforming uses,” tolerated relics that could never be replicated or replaced. Everyone else got the strip mall and the twenty-minute drive to the other side of town.
The results are all around us. Commercial rent in purpose-built retail centers (often an identikit strip mall with a laughably pastoral-sounding name) prices out the entrepreneur who needs 400 square feet instead of 4,000. Errands that could be a five-minute walk become car trips, creating traffic. People intuitively know that something has been lost in the process — perhaps the neighbor who knows your name, the shop that anchors a block, the tangible evidence that a regular person can build a small commercial concern from scratch.
The market is responding (as best it currently can) to this hunger for what we lost; that’s why developers now build outdoor malls that offer islands of curated walkability in a sea of car dependency, themed shopping centers with names like “The Commons” or the “Town Center,” and traditional Main Street façades over structured parking.
These developments are a backhanded compliment, proof that the appetite for neighborhood-scale commerce never went away. But a simulated village assembled by a single master developer, leased to national tenants, and moated by structured parking is not the thing itself; it’s a tribute act at best.
As Ashley Salvador explained in a 2020 Strong Towns essay:
We won’t get there by building more power centers disguised as “town commons.” Village concept retail without villagers is simply a caricature of a way of life that we’ve made illegal.
Neighborhood retail never required a grand theory to justify its existence, and it shouldn't require one to bring back. A person who owns a house on a residential street, and wants to sell coffee or cut hair or repair bicycles from a corner of it, is proposing to make an ordinary, productive, and harmless use of her own property. The burden of proof rests with those who would forbid it. For a century we have gotten that burden exactly backwards.
The problem is partly one of classification, as Salvador explains:
First, let’s take a moment to recognize that the concept of ACUs does not fit nicely into our current land use or lending boxes ... It’s not a corner store, because it’s located on a residential lot; it’s not a food truck, because it’s a permanent structure; it’s not really an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), because it’s not just for living; and it’s more “intense” than a home-based business.
A use that falls outside every standard box gets treated as forbidden by all of them.
The comeback, and its limits
The good news is that the corner store is ready for a comeback. Urbanists have a term for the concept — the accessory commercial unit, or ACU, a deliberate echo of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) revolution that is re-legalizing backyard cottages and garage apartments in states across the country.
The logic behind ACUs is the same: people should be allowed a modest, subordinate use on a residential lot, permitted by right, subject to objective standards rather than discretionary veto.
Scott Beyer made the case for “backyard bodegas” in a 2022 article in Governing. The American Planning Association devoted a recent issue of Zoning Practice to ACUs. Minneapolis legalized a version of the idea, and Spokane’s decision to let its historic storefronts return to commercial use produced exactly the kind of success story (a vacant corner building reborn as a bakery and brewpub) that validates the theory.
And in Austin, my own backyard, the city council has been circling the idea with growing enthusiasm. In October 2025, it directed staff to study how neighborhood coffee shops could open more easily. This March, it went further, adopting a “Strong Local Commerce” resolution instructing staff to create an Accessory Commercial Unit classification and pilot “pink zones” where small businesses could operate by right in residential areas.
In the same month, Austin City Council kicked off work on new mixed-use zoning districts designed to bring back the corner store, with Council Member Paige Ellis observing that many of Austin’s most charming, walkable neighborhoods predate the 1984 code that outlawed the pattern.
These are all welcome steps in the right direction, but even they tend to concede their opponent’s framing by treating neighborhood commerce as an exotic species to be reintroduced in small, carefully monitored enclosures, rather than as an ordinary use of private property that was wrongly prohibited in the first place.
And as with housing, so with ACUs. City-by-city reform is slow, fragile, and hostage to local politics. Washington State shows what happens when the effort reaches the statehouse and stalls anyway: a neighborhood café and corner store bill passed the House this January by a vote of 94–2, then died in a Senate committee without ever receiving a hearing — the third consecutive year the idea has fallen at the same hurdle, and the second time after it cleared the House nearly unanimously.
There is one more reason the fix has to be explicit and legal, rather than a matter of cities quietly looking the other way. Salvador again:
Until zoning bylaws explicitly allow ACUs, widespread adoption will be stalled. Banks and insurance companies won’t develop products for them, building codes will struggle to categorize them, and cities will implicitly be saying no the very individuals that could be helping drive our transition towards more equitable, prosperous, and resilient communities.
A right that exists only by forbearance is not one a lender will underwrite or an insurer will price. If we want the corner store back, the law has to say so — clearly, uniformly, and in terms a bank can rely on.
Small-scale neighborhood retail and accessory commercial units have been calling out for strong, principled model legislation to light the way for states and municipalities looking to bring back the corner store or the local bookshop. And this brings me to a promise I made back in June.
The experiment: legislation, in the open
A few weeks ago, I wrote that I would publish a draft model bill and invite readers into its development — not to praise or critique a finished product after the important decisions had been made, but to help shape one while the decisions are still open. Today I'm making good on that promise.
First, a word about the tool itself. A model bill is a piece of legislation drafted in generic form, designed to be adapted and introduced in any state. When people hear the phrase they sometimes picture something conspiratorial — legislation drafted in secret and handed down by shadowy special interests. The reality is more mundane: a model bill is simply accumulated learning, written in statutory language.
Model bills allow the fifteenth state to tackle a problem to benefit from the successes and missteps of the first fourteen. The ADU movement succeeded in large part because reformers learned, painfully and state by state, which loopholes cities would exploit (like owner-occupancy requirements, impact fees, minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, etc.) and drafted each successive bill to close them.
I have spent much of my legal career working on model legislation in the property rights and economic liberty space, and I have developed a conviction about how it should be built: in the open, with the people who will live under it. Too often the “stakeholder consultation” arrives when a bill is already 90% complete, or already filed in its pilot state. I want to reverse that.
Introducing the CORNER Act
So here is my draft: the Commerce and Opportunity through Restoring Neighborhood Enterprise and Retail (CORNER) Act — model state legislation that would allow at least one accessory commercial unit, by right, on every lot with a lawful residential use.
The full text is below, but the architecture in brief:
The CORNER Act allows an ACU on a residential lot, and makes review purely ministerial — no public hearings, no discretionary permits, no planning commission veto. It guarantees two pathways to establish an ACU: converting floor area that already lawfully exists (a garage, a front room, an accessory building), or building a new accessory structure within whatever envelope the lot’s rules would allow for an accessory residential structure.
Rather than enumerating certain protected (or privileged) business types, the bill uses a parity rule: an ACU may house any use lawful in any commercial district in the municipality. It systematically preempts the various tricks that ADU experience has taught us to expect — parking mandates, minimum lot sizes, impact fees, design standards, employee caps, customer-visit limits, and the delay-as-veto tactic (applications are deemed approved if the city sits on them for too long).
The bill includes an amnesty pathway, so that informal neighborhood businesses that already exist can come into the light. And it is self-executing, with a private right of action and fee-shifting so that the rights to small-scale neighborhood commerce don’t depend on the goodwill of a city attorney or zoning review board.
Two deliberate choices deserve flagging because they cut against the grain of some existing reforms. First, the bill does not override existing private covenants and HOA restrictions — the freedom to contract over land is itself a property right, and a bill grounded in property rights should not casually void agreements people voluntarily bought into. It does, however, prevent new covenants from replicating the prohibitions the Act removes.
Second, the base text is written to the full measure of the principle, with bracketed alternatives where states may reasonably differ. Model legislation has to serve fifty different political geographies, and the honest way to do that is not to draft to some imagined median state but to draft the complete idea and mark clearly the provisions a sponsor might tailor to local conditions — an enumerated exclusion list for certain uses, say, or a guaranteed-hours floor in place of full operational freedom.
The base text states what I believe the law should be; the brackets acknowledge that legislating is done by legislatures, in states I don’t know as well as their own advocates do. What I’ve tried hard to avoid is the quiet self-censorship that creeps into some model bill drafting, where the author waters down the bill in anticipation of objections nobody has yet raised, and the full version of the idea never appears on paper at all.
Now: tell me what’s wrong with it
This is draft version 7, and it is better than draft 1.0 largely because of people who read earlier versions and pushed back. I want more of that. General reactions are welcome, but if you'd like somewhere to start, here are the questions I'm actively wrestling with:
Is the use-parity rule too ambitious? Section 5 lets an ACU house anything lawful in any commercial district, forcing the municipality to justify exclusions rather than making the bill sponsor defend inclusions. Is that the right structure, or does it hand opponents an easy parade of horribles (the residential nightclub or oil change shop) that sinks the whole bill?
Is the size peg right? The bill caps an ACU at 50% of the enclosed floor area on the lot or 1,500 square feet, whichever is greater — so 1,500 acts as a floor on most lots. That was deliberate: a bare percentage shrinks to nothing on exactly the small, older lots where corner stores often make the most sense. But is 1,500 the right floor, and is 50% the right way to scale above it?
Where would you set the operational baseline? The base text preempts cities from restricting hours, employees, or customer visits at all, leaving generally applicable noise and nuisance ordinances to do the work; a bracketed alternative guarantees a ten-hour operating window of the owner’s choosing instead. Is the base defensible in your state, or should the bracketed version be the default?
Did I draw the covenant line in the right place? Preserving existing covenants while voiding future ones is principled, but in high-growth regions where declarants routinely record commerce-prohibiting covenants, it may blunt the bill exactly where growth is happening. Would you make a different trade?
What's the trapdoor I missed? If you were a city attorney determined to comply with this Act on paper while ensuring no ACU is ever built in your town, where would you attack? That is the question ADU reformers spent a decade answering the hard way, and I would rather answer it in the comments than in litigation.
If you have expertise — as a business owner, planner, local official, attorney, developer, or simply someone who wishes there were a café or comic book shop at the end of your street — I hope you’ll weigh in. Comment below, reply to this email, or write to me directly. Substantive objections are as valuable as endorsements, and probably more so.
The goal is not consensus, but to produce something better than any one person (or organization) could have written alone. Let’s find out whether that approach works!
THE CORNER ACT
Commerce and Opportunity through Restoring Neighborhood Enterprise and Retail Act
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Commerce and Opportunity through Restoring Neighborhood Enterprise and Retail (or CORNER) Act.
Section 2. Legislative Findings.
The Legislature finds that:
(a) Property owners have the fundamental right to make ordinary, productive, and harmless use of their property.
(b) For most of [state’s] history, predating modern zoning, neighborhoods commonly included small-scale retail and service establishments such as corner stores, bakeries, studios, and professional offices, integrated into residential areas.
(c) Restrictive zoning and land use restrictions have prevented property owners from operating small-scale neighborhood businesses on residential property even where those businesses would cause no harm to neighboring properties, contributing to the disappearance of neighborhood commerce, reduced walkability, and fewer opportunities for entrepreneurship and community gathering.
(d) Small scale commercial activity conducted in accessory commercial units supports neighborhood vitality, expands opportunities for small business ownership, improves access to everyday goods and services, and strengthens local economies and the local tax base.
(e) Statewide legislation authorizing accessory dwelling units by right has demonstrated that state standards paired with ministerial approval can restore beneficial land uses that local discretion had effectively prohibited.
(f) Allowing property owners to establish accessory commercial units by right, subject to objective health and safety protections, will promote property rights, expand entrepreneurship, and foster more walkable and vibrant neighborhoods.
Section 3. Definitions.
For purposes of this Act:
(a) “Accessory commercial unit” or “ACU” means a commercial use of property that:
(1) is located on a qualifying lot;
(2) is conducted within or attached to a residential structure, or within a separate structure on the same lot, whether established through conversion of existing space or through new construction;
(3) is open to customers, clients, or patrons who visit the property; and
(4) occupies no more than [50 percent] of the total enclosed floor area on the lot or [1,500] square feet, whichever is greater.
(b) “Accessory commercial unit” does not include a business activity that generates no on-site visits from customers, clients, or patrons.
(c) “Ministerial review” means nondiscretionary review in which the reviewing official applies only objective, published standards and exercises no personal or subjective judgment, and which does not include a public hearing.
(d) “Municipality” means any county, city, town, township, borough, village, or other political subdivision of this state exercising zoning or land use authority, including a home rule or charter municipality.
(e) “Qualifying lot” means any lot containing a lawful residential use, regardless of the zoning district in which the lot is located, including a lot containing a multifamily residential use.
Section 4. Accessory Commercial Units Permitted By Right.
(a) A municipality shall allow at least one accessory commercial unit as a permitted use by right on every qualifying lot.
(b) An accessory commercial unit shall be subject only to ministerial review. A municipality shall not require a conditional use permit, special exception, variance, discretionary approval, public hearing, or review by a planning commission or governing body as a condition of establishing or operating an accessory commercial unit.
(c) Notwithstanding any local zoning ordinance or development standard to the contrary, an owner may establish the accessory commercial unit permitted under subsection (a) by either of the following methods, at the owner’s election, and a municipality shall permit both methods on every qualifying lot:
(1) conversion of lawfully existing enclosed floor area on the lot, including floor area within the principal residential structure, an attached or detached garage, or another accessory structure; or
(2) construction of a new structure, or an addition to an existing structure, within the building envelope the municipality’s regulations would allow for an accessory residential structure on the lot.
(d) A municipality shall not deny, condition, or limit an accessory commercial unit based on the anticipated number of customers, clients, or patrons visiting the property.
(e) A municipality shall not limit accessory commercial units to particular zoning districts or overlay districts.
Section 5. Permitted Uses.
(a) An accessory commercial unit may include any commercial use that is lawful in any commercial zoning district within the municipality. In a municipality with no commercial zoning districts, an accessory commercial unit may include any lawful commercial use.
(b) A municipality shall not prohibit any category of commercial use within accessory commercial units.
[Alternative: A municipality may exclude a category of commercial use from accessory commercial units only where the use requires a state license that the state conditions on location, or where the municipality makes written findings under Section 10 that the use cannot be conducted on a residential lot without a specific, identified threat to health or safety.]
Section 6. Limitations on Local Regulation.
A municipality shall not:
(a) require off-street parking for an accessory commercial unit beyond what is required for the residential use on the lot, or require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or other parking area is converted to an accessory commercial unit;
(b) establish a minimum square footage requirement for accessory commercial units;
(c) establish a maximum square footage requirement more restrictive than the size permitted under Section 3(a)(4);
(d) impose a minimum lot size requirement as a condition of establishing an accessory commercial unit;
(e) impose setback requirements on an accessory commercial unit beyond those applicable to accessory residential structures, or in any event side or rear setbacks exceeding [five] feet for a converted existing structure;
(f) impose a height limit on a structure containing an accessory commercial unit more restrictive than the height limit applicable to accessory residential structures on the lot, or, where the accessory commercial unit is located within the principal structure, more restrictive than the height limit applicable to that structure;
(g) apply lot coverage, floor area ratio, or open space standards to preclude an accessory commercial unit guaranteed under Section 4(c);
(h) require the alteration, reduction, or removal of a lawfully existing nonconforming structure, or of any nonconforming dimension of that structure, as a condition of establishing an accessory commercial unit within it, where the conversion does not increase the extent of the nonconformity;
(i) treat a structure altered or converted under subsection (h) as having lost its nonconforming status, or the accessory commercial unit as creating a new nonconformity;
(j) treat the establishment of an accessory commercial unit as reducing or precluding an accessory dwelling unit otherwise permitted on the lot, or the reverse;
(k) impose aesthetic or design standards, or require certain architectural features, exterior materials, or exterior colors, for accessory commercial units;
(l) require a separate utility connection, separate utility metering, or separate street address for an accessory commercial unit;
(m) prohibit reasonable signage identifying an accessory commercial unit, and in any event shall permit at least one business sign of at least [six square feet] in sign area; or
(n) apply to an accessory commercial unit any development standard, requirement, exaction, or condition other than those expressly authorized by this Act and those applied to the principal residential use of the lot.
Section 7. Building Code Treatment.
(a) An accessory commercial unit shall be subject to the residential building code applicable to the principal residential structure on the lot.
(b) A municipality shall not require an accessory commercial unit to comply with commercial construction or occupancy standards except as permitted under Section 10.
(c) A municipality shall not require an accessory commercial unit to have a permanent foundation.
(d) A municipality shall not require the installation of fire sprinklers in an accessory commercial unit where sprinklers are not required for the principal residential structure.
(e) Where an accessory commercial unit is established through conversion of existing space, a municipality shall not require upgrades to building elements unrelated to the work performed.
(f) Nothing in this section prohibits modifications necessary to comply with accessibility requirements or with health regulations applicable to a specific business activity.
(g) Where an accessory commercial unit includes a business activity subject to specific construction, ventilation, fire suppression, or equipment requirements under generally applicable building, fire, or health codes, a municipality may apply those requirements to the portion of the structure in which the activity occurs, but shall not:
(1) apply requirements more stringent than those applied to the same activity conducted in a commercial zoning district in the municipality; or
(2) require that any portion of the structure not used for the accessory commercial unit be brought into compliance with commercial construction or occupancy standards.
(h) A municipality shall not condition approval of an accessory commercial unit on compliance with accessibility standards more stringent than those required by federal law or by the state building code as applied to comparable commercial uses.
(i) A municipality shall not limit occupancy of, or the number of persons present within, an accessory commercial unit below the occupant load permitted for the space under the applicable fire code, calculated using the same method, occupancy classification, and load factors applied to comparable uses elsewhere in the municipality.
Section 8. Operational Standards.
(a) A municipality shall not regulate the number of employees of an accessory commercial unit.
(b) A municipality shall not restrict the hours of operation of an accessory commercial unit, except through noise or nuisance ordinances of general applicability.
[Alternative: A municipality may regulate hours of operation, provided it permits operation during at least ten consecutive hours per day, during hours selected by the operator.]
(c) A municipality shall not limit the number of customer, client, or patron visits to an accessory commercial unit.
(d) A municipality shall not apply to an accessory commercial unit any noise standard more restrictive than the noise standard of general applicability that applies to residential uses on the same lot.
(e) A municipality may adopt reasonable regulations governing loading, deliveries, and waste disposal to prevent a nuisance, consistent with Section 10.
(f) A municipality shall permit outdoor activity associated with an accessory commercial unit, including incidental outdoor seating and display of goods, provided the principal business activity occurs within the unit.
(g) A municipality shall not revoke, suspend, or condition an accessory commercial unit based on the number of complaints received in the absence of a measured violation of an objective standard.
(h) Nothing in this Act exempts an accessory commercial unit from compliance with generally applicable state and local health, food safety, and occupational licensing requirements.
Section 9. Operators.
(a) An accessory commercial unit may be operated by the owner of the property, by a resident of the property, or by a tenant or business operator leasing the accessory commercial unit from the property owner.
(b) A municipality shall not condition the establishment or operation of an accessory commercial unit on owner occupancy of the property or on residency of the operator.
(c) An accessory commercial unit may be established only with the consent of the owner of the property on which it is located.
Section 10. Health and Safety Standard.
(a) Where this Act permits a municipality to regulate an accessory commercial unit as necessary to protect public health and safety, any such regulation, condition, or denial shall be supported by written findings based on substantial evidence, shall be narrowly tailored, and shall be no more restrictive than necessary to address the identified health or safety concern.
(b) Generalized concerns regarding traffic, parking, neighborhood character, aesthetics, or property values do not constitute health or safety grounds under this Act.
(c) Protecting existing businesses from competition is not a legitimate basis for any regulation, condition, or denial under this Act.
(d) A municipality shall not:
(1) impose a minimum distance or separation requirement between an accessory commercial unit and any other commercial use of the same or similar type;
(2) limit the number of accessory commercial units permitted within the municipality or within any geographic area, block, or district;
(3) require a showing of public convenience and necessity, market demand, or economic need as a condition of approval;
(4) condition approval on the consent, non-objection, or comment of the operator of any other business; or
(5) restrict the customers an accessory commercial unit may serve by place of residence.
Section 11. Permitting Procedure and Fees.
(a) A municipality shall review an application to establish an accessory commercial unit ministerially, applying only objective, published standards.
(b) A municipality shall approve or deny a complete application within [60] days of submission. An application not acted upon within that period is deemed approved. An application is deemed complete if the municipality does not notify the applicant in writing of specific deficiencies within [15] days of submission.
(c) A denial shall be in writing, shall identify the specific provision of law on which it is based, and shall describe how the applicant may cure the deficiency.
(d) Fees for review of an accessory commercial unit application shall not exceed the actual administrative cost of review, or [$500], whichever is less.
(e) A municipality shall not impose an impact fee on an accessory commercial unit, and shall not require, as a condition of establishing an accessory commercial unit, the dedication of land or easements, the construction, repair, or financing of off-site improvements, or the payment of any fee, charge, or exaction other than the fee permitted under subsection (d) and charges for utility service actually provided to the property.
Section 12. Enforcement.
(a) An ordinance, regulation, or policy that conflicts with this Act is void and unenforceable to the extent of the conflict.
(b) A person aggrieved by a municipal action inconsistent with this Act may seek declaratory or injunctive relief and shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing party.
(c) For purposes of this section, a party prevails if it obtains any form of judicial or administrative relief, including a judgment on the merits, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, a preliminary injunction, or a consent decree, or if the litigation is a material contributing factor in achieving the requested relief through voluntary action by the municipality.
(d) For purposes of this section, a person aggrieved includes:
(1) a property owner, operator, applicant, or prospective applicant for an accessory commercial unit;
(2) an organization whose members include a person described in paragraph (1); and
(3) an organization whose stated purposes include the promotion of neighborhood commerce, small business ownership, entrepreneurship, housing, or property rights, with respect to a municipal action within the area the organization serves.
Section 13. Vested Rights.
(a) An accessory commercial unit lawfully established under this Act may continue notwithstanding any subsequent amendment to the municipality’s zoning or land use regulations.
(b) The right to operate a lawfully established accessory commercial unit runs with the land and is not terminated by sale or transfer of the property, by a change of operator, or by a change to another use permitted under this Act.
(c) An accessory commercial unit shall not be deemed discontinued or abandoned unless commercial use has ceased for [24] consecutive months.
Section 14. Existing Establishments.
(a) The operator of a commercial use in existence before the effective date of this Act that meets the standards of this Act may apply to the municipality for recognition as an accessory commercial unit, and the municipality shall review the application under Section 11.
(b) Upon approval, the municipality shall not impose penalties, back fees, or enforcement actions arising from operation of the use before the effective date of this Act.
(c) An accessory commercial unit established before the effective date of this Act shall be evaluated under the building code provisions in effect at the time of its construction, except where the municipality makes written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that a specific condition poses a threat to health and safety.
(d) A municipality shall not use an application submitted under this section as the basis for a code enforcement action, penalty, or order to vacate, and shall not deny an application on the ground that the use was previously unpermitted.
(e) Where the municipality identifies a condition posing a threat to health and safety, it shall allow the applicant not less than [180 days] to correct the condition before initiating enforcement.
Section 15. Relationship to Home Occupations.
Nothing in this Act prohibits or regulates home occupations, which remain governed by applicable state and local law. A business activity described in Section 3(b) is not an accessory commercial unit and is not subject to this Act.
Section 16. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Act prevents a municipality from enforcing nuisance laws of general applicability.
(b) Except as modified by this Act, generally applicable building, fire, and health codes continue to apply to accessory commercial units.
(c) This Act establishes minimum rights and does not prevent a municipality from adopting or enforcing regulations less restrictive of accessory commercial units than those required by this Act.
(d) This Act applies to every municipality in this state, including home rule and charter municipalities.
(e) This Act applies to applications pending on or submitted after its effective date.
(f) A covenant, condition, restriction, or provision of a common interest community governing document recorded or adopted before the effective date of this Act remains enforceable according to its terms, including a provision restricting or prohibiting commercial activity.
(g) A covenant, condition, restriction, or governing document provision recorded or adopted on or after the effective date of this Act, including a provision added by amendment or restatement of a document recorded or adopted before that date, is void and unenforceable to the extent it prohibits, or effectively prohibits, the establishment or operation of an accessory commercial unit permitted under this Act.
(h) If any provision of this Act or its application is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(i) This Act takes effect on _________.
Is there (could there be) a version for a city council to enact? My city might be interested, but our state legislature probably isn't.
I’m leery about the covenant side. Some areas might already be blanketed by covenants, rendering the legislation mostly toothless.
Maybe you do something like a phase-out/opt-in: Any covenant older than X years (5-20ish?) is automatically voided; keep the prohibition on new covenants, BUT existing covenants can be revived for a term of Y years (5ish) if all current parties consent.
Basically, it gives neighborhoods with unanimous opposition a hook to preserve their precious status quo, disgusting as I might personally find it. BUT it also allows any objectors a hook to force their nosy neighbors to compensate them for the imposition on their own property rights.
AND it preemptively clears out the brushwork of countless outdated and stale covenants that have no business remaining in place.