More bills are popping out at the legislature, and as we warned, these early bills are not ones that have been part of the discussions by groups like the land use task force, the commission on housing affordability, or the UEOC. They are usually something a single legislator is doing in response to a concern or issue by a constituent(s) or a community in his/her district.
That may well be the case with these two bills. The first is HB195 – Land Use Amendments https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0195.html. The purpose of the bill is a laudable one, to consider the impacts of development on wildlife. But the way this bill would put that into the LUDMA – well, let’s just say, it would likely be a burden.
In the general plan section of LUDMA, the bill does not make consideration of “the impacts of development on wildlife, including the impacts on wildlife movement and wildlife habitat; and how the impacts described may be mitigated” one of the elements of the general plan. It is placed in the code so that such evaluation needs to be done for all of the other elements and the plan overall.
But wait, it gets better! The bill also places this language in the section of LUDMA on enactment of land use regulations. It’s location in the code is such that any time a local body is considering adopting or amending a land use regulation, this wildlife impact evaluation must be performed. Wow! The effect that this would have on cities and towns and counties any time they want to make changes to their land use or zoning codes is best summed up by a friend and colleague, North Ogden Planning Director (and APA Utah legislative committee co-chair) Scott Hess:
This is not going to be an area of expertise for Planners, PC Members, or even City Council members. This will require a third party review and assessment of “wildlife impacts”. This feels like an environmental assessment level of analysis, and that seems costly and time consuming.
The other bill is HB237 – Land Use Authority Amendments https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0237.html. Here’s the relevant language from the bill:
“aesthetic feature” means a characteristic of a structure that relates to the color, architectural style, type of facade, or other aesthetic quality of the structure.
A municipality may not require development that occurs on or after January 1, 2025 to incorporate an aesthetic feature preferred by the municipality unless the preferred aestheticfeature is expressed in the municipality’s land use regulation.
The question about the language of this bill quickly becomes, how does it relate to the recently adopted prohibitions on regulating residential building design in Section 10-9a-534 https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title10/Chapter9A/10-9a-S534.html?v=C10-9a-S534_2023050320230701. One answer is that this new bill language would apply to all other buildings. That would seem to be the case considering where it is placed in the LUDMA – in Section 501, the enactment of land use regulations. Thus, the bill would likely apply to everything else – multi-family residential, commercial, industrial.
The question then becomes, because it applies more generally, would that mean it overrides the provision in Section 534 which allows for residential building design standards to apply in development agreements? Must those agreed-upon provisions have been adopted into the local land use code?
What would this bill mean for such innovative actions like this one described in a recent issue of Build Salt Lake? https://buildingsaltlake.com/builder-aims-elevate-design-with-new-density-in-suburban-herriman/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=builder-aims-elevate-design-with-new-density-in-suburban-herriman&ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)
Lots of questions, lots of potentially unforeseen impacts. That’s why we urge that land use bills be run by the land use task force first!