Observations on some of the bills we are watching as they make their way through the legislative process. First, let me just say, these last few days of the legislative session are usually referred to as the “silly season” because time is getting short and there’s lots left to get done. Bills or provisions that come out now are usually one of two things – they are supported by leadership and will move very quickly, or they are messages not meant to be passed in the short time left, but to send a message to those engaged on those issues.
SB271 – Home Ownership Requirements, one of the bills I noted came out right after the Presidents’ Day Weekend, is about fractional or partial ownership and their relation to Short-Term Rentals. I got some feedback about this from readers in both Park City and Washington County. Here’s some explanation from a Park City staff report when the council there was considering regulation last fall:
companies offering Fractional or Co-Ownership—where multiple investors each own a portion of a home that is typically, but not always, managed by a third party— have been purchasing and selling “fractions” of SingleFamily Dwellings and other Dwelling Units as vacation properties… .
Their concerns are summed up as such:
…finding a balance that protects Park City’s primary resident Zoning Districts and areas of the City with primary resident occupancy is vital to retaining the function and livability of established neighborhoods.
SB271 would prohibit regulation of fractional, or really of any joint, ownership.
SB166 – Education Entity Amendments was substituted with a version that was extensively renegotiated by staff at the League. The substitute bill, while it still would allow home-based and micro-education entities to be allowed in all residential zones, reduced the size of these facilities (for home-based, the number went down from 25 to 16, for micro-education from 150 to 100). It also now stipulates:
Nothing in Subsection (7) prevents a political subdivision from:
646 (a) requiring a micro-education entity or home-based education entity to comply with
647 municipal zoning and land use regulations that do not conflict with this section, including:
648 (i) parking;
649 (ii) traffic; and
650 (iii) hours of operation;
651 (b) requiring a micro-education entity or home-based education entity to obtain a
652 business license;
653 (c) enacting municipal ordinances and regulations consistent with this section;
654 (d) subjecting a micro-education entity to standards within each zone pertaining to
655 setback, height, bulk and massing regulations, off-site parking, curb cut, traffic circulation, and
656 construction staging; and
657 (e) imposing regulations on the location of a project that are necessary to avoid risks to
658 health or safety.
But yesterday in the Senate, the vote on the bill was 13-13, which means it failed to pass. However, in a strategic move, Sen Fillmore, the bill sponsor, voted with those to not pass the bill, which means he could now bring it back on a motion to reconsider. Don’t think this one is dead yet.
HB265 – Sentinel Landscape Amendments has a second substitute version on the floor of the Senate. This version no longer prohibits cities from annexing property within 5,000 feet of a military facility, but instead requires that all local entities within that distance to prepare compatible use plans. If the entity has a similar plan that was previously adopted, that would suffice. However, it still retains the provision that all land use applications of an entity within 5,000 feet must submit those land use applications to the State Department of Veteran and Military Affairs for review of compatibility. The Department has 90 days to respond. Wow! That’s potentially a pretty substantial delay in the processing of land use applications! And given the distance (nearly 1 mile) in communities like Clearfield, Layton, Roy, South Ogden, Saratoga Springs, Bluffdale, Eagle Mountain and Tooele, this could be a lot of land use applications! I’m surprised there hasn’t been more of a reaction from those communities.
There is a third substitute that has been released for this bill, but has not yet been adopted. It contains a provision that is unrelated to the Sentinel Landscape (land use around military facilities). Where the heck did that come from? Here’s what it says:
A city/county may not restrict property owners of adjoining land, regardless of the municipality or county in which the land is located, from entering into an agreement to provide a right-of-way for the purpose of gaining a secondary access to an owner’s property.
Sounds like something meant to address a specific anecdote somewhere – again! These should be discussed first! Or maybe it’s meant to be a message… It is the silly season at the legislature right now.
We are still awaiting the long-anticipated substitute for SB174 – Local Land Use and Development Revisions, which has the mandated uniform process for consideration and approval of subdivision plats (as well as other things). Given the experience with the other major land use bill – HB406 – LUDMA Modifications, where some things were added in the substitute bill that had not been discussed by the Land Use Task Force, who knows what else might show up in that bill?
As I said, it is the silly season! Keep your eyes open!