Well, I spent some time scrounging around on the Utah legislature’s website and found several more bills, listed under non-obvious categories, that would directly impact local planning and land use regulation, if they pass. Again, these are bills that have not been vetted through the land use task force, or even the CHA (commission on housing affordability). Would be helpful, for both the bills themselves and communities, if they would.
Here are the bills:
H.B. 243 Riparian Amendments – this bill would add another element that would have to be included in municipal and county general plans, addressing riparian areas. In yesterday’s post, we talked about a bill that would require local plans and land use regulations to consider impacts on wildlife and how problematic it would be, given the way it was being placed in the LUDMA. If it is to move forward, we would recommend that it be more like this bill. However, here’s our concern – in the last couple of years, there have been several new required elements added for general plans. Doing a general plan now means a lot more work and likely hiring of various experts to meet all the requirements. We indicated a couple years ago our concern that given this trend, general plans could become quite unwieldy and expensive to do if many new required elements were added. Not only the number and range of topics, but the detail that was being put in the code with these new elements (take a look at the water element, for example!) could really make it tough. Not so sure this is a good trend – what’s next? https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0243.html
H.B. 11 Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements – while this bill would not make any changes in the LUDMA, it does impose restrictions on the use of lawn and turf for landscaping. Interesting bill, intended to enhance water conservation.
https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0011.html
H.B. 256 Military Compatible Land Use Amendments – you might recall from the last legislative session a bill that required for all new development proposed within 5,000 feet of military land, the local jurisdiction must notify the state Department of Veterans and Military Affairs. The department would then have 90 days to respond, before any action could be taken on the development application (applications for single structures are exempt). The bill says that if the department determines that the application is deemed incompatible by the state department, the “municipality should not allow” the development. Now, the bill does not say “shall not,” just “should not.” Does that mean the city could still allow the application even if the department says no? Lawyers? What say ye?
https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0256.html
And finally, a bill that’s just kind of a personal pleasure for me,
H.B. 235 Eminent Domain Amendments – this bill states explicitly that eminent domain power is available for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. For a long time state law has said that the eminent domain power cannot be used for trails, the result of a big political fight over a particular trail action a number of years ago. There have been several attempts to overturn that restriction over the years, but they have not succeeded. Hope this bill can crack the armor!
https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0235.html
That’s it for now, plenty more to come in the days ahead.