The last week of the legislative session has started off with a bang! Plenty to catch up on, so here goes.
First, let me apologize for sending out an update so late in the day. I had some other commitments today that kept me tied up until just now.
HB406 – LUDMA Modifications
There is now a 4th Substitute version out of this bill. It has not been adopted yet, but likely will be when it comes up for a vote on Senate 2nd Reading. The main difference in this version from the currently adopted version is that all the language regarding a “local non-historic lot” has been removed. This was done after League representatives prevailed in arguing to not have language in this Land Use Task Force bill that had not been discussed or agreed to by the LUTF members. The sponsor has, however, indicated that this language will likely be inserted into another bill (much like the language was inserted at the last moment into SB84!). I still haven’t any idea what this is all about and why it’s apparently so urgent to have this dealt with legislatively. Anyone know?
Also, with regard to the question raised by Todd Draper last week about the language in the bill about lot line adjustments, here’s a response from one of our land use legal eagles:
In my mind the biggest issue with lot line adjustments is not being addressed:
10-9a-608(5)(ii) a document of conveyance of title reflecting the approved change shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder with an amended plat.
This section identifies a simplified process for a lot line adjustment, but then wipes it away with the last three (3) words. If a plat is required, typically communities treat it like a subdivision and require all the same steps for a subdivision.
Here’s another:
Does it even matter what the code says?
For example, note this language adopted in 2019:
17-27a-609. Land use authority approval of vacation or amendment of plat — Recording the amended plat. (same language in city code as well)
(1) The land use authority may approve the vacation or amendment of a plat by signing an amended plat showing the vacation or amendment if the land use authority finds that:
(a) there is good cause for the vacation or amendment; and
(b) no public street or county utility easement has been vacated or amended what this means is that the land use authority may not allow a plat amendment if there is any change to a public utility easement or street. Well, pretty much every recent subdivision plat includes a ten foot wide public utility easement around the boundaries of each lot. So since every lot includes a public utility easement, no changes to any of those lot lines are allowed in a subdivision amendment. Period. State law.
Seems like we have some issues with the language for lot line adjustments in LUDMA. Could a planning commissioner or city planner read this and figure it out? Could many of our city attorneys? Hmmmm.