Just one more thing on the general plan consistency issue (see yesterday’s post for some additional comments received) – it really seems to me that some of those pushing for plan consistency see the general plan as being primarily a future land use map.  Their thinking goes, I believe, that once that plan (map) is adopted by ordinance, it now has the effect of law and must allow whatever the adopted zoning code for that use allows.  There is a statement in LUDMA that says a general plan land use element must include “…location of land for housing for residents of various income levels, business, industry, agriculture, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, open space, and other categories of public and private uses of land as appropriate.”  But it does not designate how specific that location is to be, and certainly does not require a future land use map.  Many general plans nowadays have a fairly generalized land use map, often showing just generally where different types of land uses may go, with fuzzy boundaries.  So.  Just goes to show how much work would be needed to define just what would be meant by a requirement for general plan consistency, and what level of detail would need to be included in general plans.

Okay, enough of that.  Most of the active bills we’re following are kind of in a holding pattern right now, awaiting votes on House and Senate floor before they move on to the next step.  Here are some takes on some of our bills of interest from the media and other sources.

Here’s a news story about SB181, which essentially now just deals with parking standards for some types of residences.

Here’s a news story about SB250 and the potential of funds from inland ports being used for housing.

Here’s a news story about what may be the story behind SB211, which would exempt some schools from local land use standards.

Here’s a webpage from Scenic Utah explaining what they see as the problems with HB198, the bill that would expand the area for sign relocation because of highway construction.

And finally, here’s a piece from Smart Cities Dive (a website that “provides business journalism and in-depth insight into the most impactful news and trends shaping smart cities) about how four cities are advancing affordable housing and dealing with NIMBYism.  One of the cities featured is our own Clearfield City.

There’s some more interesting stuff going on, like a bill in the legislature that would allow, under certain conditions, a new county to be created from an existing one, and a lawsuit filed by a pending new city over a development approval by county officials within their new future city boundaries.  It’s all just fun and games out there! (until somebody loses an eye!)