Glad it’s a holiday so I can catch up! A couple of the more controversial bills on our list were heard in committee late Friday (Valentine’s Day – how sweet!).
HB355 – Mining and Critical Infrastructure Materials Amendments, which had the 1st substitute considered (which we detailed what the changes were in a previous post), had lots of comments in committee, both for and against. The sponsor noted that he will continue to work with the League and others on issues related to local land use controls, and the committee went ahead and voted the bill out favorably on a 9-3 vote.
HB198 – Highway Expansion Impacts on Signage Amendments – a substitute bill was presented in committee. The substitute proposes to change the parameters of the area in which a billboard can be moved to 4 miles in either direction along an interstate highway, and 1 mile along a state road. In the committee hearing, there was discussion about there needing to be limits placed on it to stipulate that it must be within the same jurisdiction in which the sign is located, or by agreement with another jurisdiction, and some others. Again, the sponsor indicated a willingness to continue to work on this bill with the concerned groups, and the committee voted the bill out favorably by a 10-1 vote.
Now, for your enlightenment and edification, here are a few things to note in some of the pending bills.
HB44 – Private Airport Notice Amendments – There have been several substitutes for this bill. The version currently in play indicates that the land use authority is to record a notice with the county recorder and notify all property owners within 2,500 feet of a “significant private airport” runway, with language specified in the bill. My question is, the previous version simply said the municipality (or county) is to do the notifications. Why change the language to make it the land use authority? That could be the PC, or a particular staff person. But then, since the entity has the authority to designate different LUAs for different functions, they could designate the clerk or someone to do the notification as required by this bill.
HB122 – National Guard and Military Amendments – this bill has been approved in House committee and is on the House floor, but has been circled (put on hold) since January 29. In the meantime, there have been 8 more substitute versions of the bill proposed. The latest draft version would completely eliminate the section about the Great Salt Lake Sentinel Landscape (see previous post for details). Interesting.
HB241 – Solar Power Plant Amendments – this bill was substituted and approved in committee on Friday afternoon as well. The substitute version eliminates all the provisions that said solar farms must meet local land use provisions and be approved. That’s gone in this version of the bill. Some would say that’s a good thing because so many big infrastructure projects get waylaid by local opposition and denials, that’s why it’s takes so long to try and get new power plants or transmission lines or other needed infrastructure built. Depends on your viewpoint.
HB328 – Water Useage Amendments – this bill was also approved in on Friday in committee. Just be aware, this bill which prohibits the use of overhead spray irrigation in new developments, requires that this is an item to be included in land use applications (since it must be checked for by the reviewing entity), and then requires that local entity to inspect to assure compliance. More to do!
SB179 – Local Regulation of Business Entities Amendments – was also passed out favorably by committee Friday. The is a bill which I had opined was not necessary as this is a process most entities are already doing as a matter of course in land use administration. The committee on Friday adopted a substitute version for the bill, which allows the local entity to develop its own process, with a number of requirements for things to include in the process, including a length of time to make a final determination (and it creates a new section in LUDMA, which it would increase by another 40 lines).
SB195 – Transportation Amendments – this bill was substituted and approved in committee earlier last week. What it does do that local land use professionals and officials should be aware of is require for entities within an MPO area to update the transportation and circulation element of their general plan to consider connectivity issues, to be accomplished by July 1, 2027. Now this requirement will not be found in LUDMA under this bill, but instead in the section on Powers and Duties of Municipalities (Chapter 8), Public Transportation (Part 2). So just be aware, we have this and several other provisions that relate to local planning and land use regulation that reside in other areas of the state code. Who knew? Or will know in future?