In the past few days, there have been several pieces in local media that highlight some of the issues and consequences of the land use/housing bills passed by the legislature this session.

The first is an opinion piece in the DesNews by state Rep. Stephanie Gricius (Eagle Mountain) on the emphasis on infrastructure in the legislature this session.  She sponsored HB436 – Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments, which among other things required MIHP cities to report the number of residential occupancy permits issued in the prior year, and if the number exceeds 2.5% of the number of existing homes, the community then receives priority for certain state transportation funds.  Her comments also relate directly to other infrastructure measures passed this year, such as HB492 – Transportation, Infrastructure, and Housing Amendments, which is considered one of the major housing-related bills passed this year.

Rep. Gricius writes,

Investing in infrastructure directly supports housing affordability in ways that create real, lasting impact. Areas like northwest Utah County and southwest Salt Lake County have room to build more homes. Increasing supply helps ease demand and stabilize prices.

A big part of the rationale for the state putting such emphasis on infrastructure funding is that lack of infrastructure is cited in many communities as one reason why they are not able to build more housing.  The local plans identify areas where housing is called for, often the zoning is in place, but not the water tanks, sewer and storm drain lines, and major roads needed to service such development.  Rep. Gricius again:

That’s why, during the legislative session, the House Majority Caucus took an infrastructure-first approach.

For years, Utah has prioritized planning ahead to support growth. By continuing the tradition of investing wisely, building responsibly and thinking about the big picture, we can build a strong foundation for what comes next.

One of the bills we tracked this session, that did pass, was HB509 – Wetlands Study Amendments.  The bill directs the state Dept. of Natural Resources to conduct a study on the condition of wetlands in first- and second-class counties, and report back to the legislature by the end of October 2027 with recommendations on actions to be taken.  Notably, the wetlands in the designated counties include those around the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake.

Why would this be a big issue?  Well, there is actually a lot of development happening and proposed in or near those wetlands areas, such as the new state prison, new data centers, industrial facilities, and more, much of it due to the Inland Port Authority.  Preserving the Great Salt Lake is another top priority for the legislature, and all that development could have an impact on that.  A story in the Trib does a pretty good job of enumerating what’s going on in those areas and why it’s becoming a concern.  Use of water is a big part of it.

The concern about what all this new development may mean for the state’s natural environment, as well as it’s livability and quality of life, was mentioned as an apparent consideration in legislative deliberations this session by panelists at ULI Utah’s Legislative Update on Monday.  The panelists, which included Chris Gamvroulas of Ivory Development and Karson Eilers of the Utah League, agreed that legislators are hearing from constituents about growth issues and they are starting to ask questions about how that growth can be better managed to preserve quality of life, including, if we continue to push for new economic growth, where are those workers going to live?  It may also have been part of the impetus behing HB507 – State Coordination of Local and Regional Economic Development Projects Amendments, which consolidated and rolled back a number of tax incentive programs for housing and economic development.  Just too many and too much is what the sentiment may have been.

An excellent story in Building Salt Lake about the ULI session captured some of this sentiment, as well as the apparent “fatigue” legislators are experiencing on the housing affordability issue.  Panelists noted that several of the land use/housing bills ran into lack of support and nearly didn’t pass this session.  According to Gamvroulas,

… (this) is a reflection of the “housing fatigue” in the Utah Legislature, as he added that state lawmakers are tired of enacting programs that could chip away at their tax bases. He said an example of the fatigue was House Concurrent Resolution 6, a non-binding resolution about the state’s housing plan. The HCR passed the Utah House with a 41-26-8 vote, and Gamvroulas said the number of no votes was surprising.

“I’ve never seen 26 members of the House vote no on a non-binding resolution — I’ve never seen it,” he told the audience Monday. “Why would you vote no on a non-binding resolution supporting a non-binding state housing plan? It’s because you’re tired, it’s just because you’re tired, and they just don’t want to hear it.”

The panel also talked about failed bills:

State lawmakers avoided sweeping zoning policy changes in 2026, killing bills like House Bill 184, which would have created a way for builders to petition for smaller minimum lot sizes for single family homes.

Panelists were asked about HB 184 that was presented by Rep. Ray Ward, who has consistently proposed bills aimed at creating smaller allowable home lots and expanding ADU accessibility statewide. An audience member asked if those sorts of bills were possible in the future, or the legislation would continue to see resistance.

Gamvroulas pointed to Eilers, saying the Utah League of Cities and Towns has consistently opposed Ward’s previous bills. Eilers said the League worked with Ward on his bill this year, but added the bill, “in our minds, still, by creating a preferred state land use, was a step over the line into our legislative authority.”

The audience member that asked that question happened to be me, and I was sitting next to the Building Salt Lake reporter, maybe that’s why he wrote about it.  Karson’s answer was a lot about the League municipal members not ever really being willing to give up local legislative authority on land use.

So that prompted me to ask a follow-up as to why, then, the League supported the provisions in SB284 on detached ADUs, which in essence is also an abrogation of local legislative authority by the state on land use.  Building Salt Lake reported the response,

Though ULCT has largely opposed any statewide zoning changes, the group did support SB 284. Eilers said the League tries to make decisions based on the majority of its membership, and cities around Utah have been leading that discussion to begin with. He added that some member cities aren’t comfortable with the change, but the bill was written in a way to maintain local control on setbacks and where utilities are placed.

“We try to make sure that cities retain as much discretion as possible in implementing this, while still pushing them a little bit to allow them,” Eilers said.

Karson did say also that a number of cities were already allowing for ADUs, so this wasn’t really that big a stretch.  But from my standpoint, the same could be said about small lots – a number of cities are already allowing for small residential lots, many of them much smaller than 5,400 square feet as proposed in HB184.  Why wasn’t that, then, a basis for working more with Ward on his bill?

My answer to that is, I think, the outreach and cooperative efforts undertaken on the ADU provisions, which were lacking for the small lots bill.  Rep. Ward, even though he did come to a session of the League’s legislative policy committee, did not really do more extensive collaborative work with cities on his bill.  That certainly took place to a much greater extent on the ADU provisions.  Just sayin’, that’s my view.

While legislators may be feeling “fatigued” on housing and land use issues, I don’t think we’re done seeing more.  Get ready, there’ll almost certainly be more coming!