Late in the day Friday, the anticipated substitute for one of the major land use bills was introduced and promptly passed by the full House. The bill, HB406 – LUDMA Modifications, is now in the Senate, and it is in many ways a rather different bill than the original. Most apparent is that many of the provisions in the original bill applied only to municipalities, an apparent oversight. The substitute bill now includes the same provisions in the counties LUDMA as well.
Another major change in the bill is the inclusion of provisions regarding the allowable requirements that can be imposed for low-volume residential streets, such as those typically included on subdivision plats. They are defined as “residential roadways” in the bill (lines 802-815). The bill would stipulate that such streets may have a maximum width of asphalt of 32 feet. The bill goes on to list a number of exceptions to this width requirement, and then sets up an appeals process (lines 1010-1056). This provision was expected, as it had been the subject of a long series of negotiations between the Property Rights Coalition and local government officials and engineers.
The provision in the original bill regarding “moratoriums” (actually pending and temporary ordinances) has been changed, for the better. However, it still took me having to get some guidance from my legal scholar colleague to understand just exactly what the language of the bill was saying (take a look at lines 1082-1084 in the bill and see if you can figure out on your own just what it’s saying). According to my colleague, this is referring to if there has been a pending ordinance or temporary ordinance on this same topic in effect anytime in the previous 12 months. The idea is to prevent a local jurisdiction from “stacking” moratoriums – that is, at the end of the allowed 6 month period, another is initiated to follow directly. When I made the comment that we’re getting more and more provisions in LUDMA now that I dare say no planner, planning commissioner or councilmemeber, let alone many other attorneys, can understand, my colleague said rather tongue-in-cheek, “well, we’re apparently trying to make the land use codes more like the water codes – something only specialized attorneys can understand!” Amen!
The substitute bill also adds language that stipulates that a house in a residential zone that has a conditional use, can be replaced without having to reapply for the conditional use (must have been an anecdotal problem somewhere – I don’t recall any discussion about this with the Land Use Task Force. And as we know, the best way to solve such one-off issues is to … pass a law about it in the legislature!)
Some of the language in the bill on changes regarding development agreements has also been modified.
A new provision regarding the prohibition of building design elements has been added to the bill. It says that “subterranean improvements” (defined in the definitions section of LUDMA) are not subject to land use regulation, plat, or other location restrictions. Again, there must have been something somewhere that triggered this.
And finally, a provision has been added to the bill regarding the requiring of surety for landscaping. This had been the subject of discussions in the LUTF, but I don’t recall there being agreement on what to modify. The provision in this bill stipulates that surety can only be required for landscaping that will be dedicated to and maintained by the public jurisdiction, not any private landscaping.
Okay, there you have it. Pretty much a new bill. And as I said, this substitute bill has passed the House and will now be taken up by the Senate. Two weeks left!