At last, a couple of significant planning bills came out yesterday, though they were not the ones we’ve been waiting for. Again, we’re getting bills that have not been vetted through the land use task force. Not unexpected, but disappointing that the process to avoid clashes and conflict over land use is being bypassed (seems to fit with the political climate of the day).
Most notable is HB303 – Downzoning Notice Amendments – rather a mess of a bill (editorial comment). This bill would require that notice must be given to all affected property owners of any proposed change to land use regulations at least 30 days in advance. Currently the code only requires notice to individual property owners in proposed rezones, 10 days in advance. The purpose of this notice is then to allow any property owner opportunity to file an application for approval under current land use provisions before any proposed changes are allowed to move forward.
This proposed bill is clearly aimed at allowing property owners to avoid the changes that may come from a proposed downzone. I’ve picked up word that this bill was specifically triggered by a proposed action in a Wasatch Front community, which has since been resolved, but that hasn’t stopped this proposal from moving ahead anyway. I’ve also heard rumors that the original intent for this bill was to do something similar to what was passed by initiative in Arizona in 2006 which requires local governments to compensate property owners for loss of value when property is downzoned, but cooler heads prevailed with the current moderated language in this bill.
This bill would substantially change the vested rights and pending ordinance provisions that have been in place in Utah for a considerable time now and which has seemed to work reasonably well. That’s not to say that current rules and practices should always remain in place just because, but making such substantial changes to such rules ought to be carefully considered and discussed to ferret out the merits and shortfalls. None of that has happened with this bill.
Here’s an insightful critique of the bill as written by a credible Utah land use attorney who is well-versed in current land use law practices:
It is overly broad, fails to amend the pending ordinance doctrine in the other sections of the code, amends only the city code and not the county version, and is otherwise impractical. It casts such a wide net that cities would at times be required to notify everyone of every change in the general regulations and everyone in the zone if only one zone is affected. It does not say, for example, that the person can file a notice related to an application that would otherwise be affected or prohibited by the proposed change, but that if the property owner received a notice then he or she cannot file any application at all – even if not affected by the change – without a notice being filed as well. It is problematic that it says that the owners who received the notice can attempt to exempt themselves – but only if they received it. Whether or not the city mailed it is immaterial.
Another interesting bill out yesterday is HB305 – Natural Resource Revisions. It makes some pretty sweeping changes to the state administrative structure for agencies dealing with outdoor recreation and for open space and agricultural land conservation. It creates a new Division of Conservation in the Department of Agriculture and Food. Most notably the bill does away with the Quality Growth Commission but reconstitutes it as the Land Conservation Board which will continue with all the duties of reviewing applications for land conservation, and none of the growth planning policy duties. One provision in the bill I question is where the bill requires that funding for proposals for land conservation must be consented to by the local county land use authority. I’m not sure that the drafters of the bill understand that a LUA is a administrative body, not a policy or legislative one. As such, it is not the county governing body, but could be a planning commission, another body, or even a staff person. If their intent is to get the blessing of the elected officials, that should be made more explicit. Alternatively, the county governing body has the option to designate land use authorities for various processes, so it could designate itself as the LUA for these types of conservation applications, but this would require some education of everyone involved.
Okay, enough for today. More fun to come, no doubt!