HB576 would create a new section of Kentucky law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are self-contained living units on the same parcel as a single-family home. The bill defines an ADU and requires it to meet applicable building, fire, and sanitation codes. It also specifies size limits depending on whether the unit is internal, attached, or detached from the primary home.
The core policy change is that ADUs would be treated as a permitted use in all residential zones and would not be subject to local permitting or review under KRS Chapter 100. Local planning units would be barred from adopting ordinances that prohibit a property owner from having one ADU, impose stricter standards than those applied to single-family homes, or charge extra fees beyond those authorized in the bill. At the same time, the bill preserves local authority to require notice before construction, impose a one-time fee of up to $250, restrict short-term rentals under 30 days, and limit a property to one ADU.
Impact
HB576 would preempt local zoning and planning rules to standardize the treatment of accessory dwelling units across Kentucky. It would limit the ability of planning units and local governments to use zoning, parking, design, lot-size, setback, occupancy, or relationship-based restrictions to block ADUs, while still allowing generally applicable building and safety codes to remain in force. The bill would affect property owners, local planning commissions, zoning boards, and housing developers by making it easier to add small secondary housing units on existing residential lots.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a housing-supply and property-rights bill rather than a controversial regulatory expansion. Its structure suggests support for simplifying ADU development and reducing local barriers, which is often associated with pro-housing sentiment. However, the lack of transcript or vote history means there is no documented public record here of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders.
Contention
The main points of contention likely involve state preemption versus local control. Local planning units may object to losing authority over zoning standards, parking requirements, setbacks, occupancy rules, and fee structures for ADUs. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s limits on local review and its allowance for only a modest one-time fee, which could be viewed by municipalities as insufficient to cover administrative costs. Supporters would likely emphasize housing affordability, flexibility for homeowners, and expanded options for multigenerational or rental housing.