A quick notification of an upcoming action on one of the bills we are following – SB262- Housing Affordability Modifications. This bill is up for hearing at 4:00 this afternoon in the Senate Economic Development Committee.
I described in previous posts what this bill was mainly about. I noticed another small change, which I initially thought was of little consequence – the definition of general plan. This is how it is defined in LUDMA currently:
“General plan” means a document that a municipality adopts that sets forth general guidelines for proposed future development of the land within the municipality.
Line 142 of the bill adds the words “by ordinance” after adopts. I didn’t think much of it because some jurisdictions already adopt their general plans by ordinance. Others do it by resolution. I had always understood it was really more a matter of preference than anything, there really wasn’t much of a difference in how it’s done.
But in today’s League LPC meeting, this was brought up as a point to oppose the bill. The reason? Because of the discussions in recent months at the LUTF and CHA about a push to make conformance with general plans mandatory. While this small addition to the definition of general plan alone doesn’t really make them mandatory, some would argue that at the very least this is the first step in that direction.
While this word is added to the definition, if you take a look at Section 10-9a-404-(4), it simply says that a proposed general plan may be adopted by a municipal legislative body, but does not specify how (resolution or ordinance.) Further, Section 10-9a-405 says “…the general plan is an advisory guide for land use decisions, the impact of which shall be determined by ordinance.” This appears to leave it to the discretion of the municipality as to how much “mandate” they want to give the plan. Counties, on the other hand, have an additional provision in their general plan section of LUDMA which says, “The legislative body may adopt an ordinance mandating compliance with the general plan, and shall adopt an ordinance requiring compliance with all provisions of Subsection 17-27a-401(4)(b).” I remember when this amendment was being made years ago to the LUDMA, the cities said they did not want this provision in their version of LUDMA, so it’s not there.
Still, the League, based on their recent discussions with the bill sponsor and others, see this change in the definition as a potential first step towards general plan conformance mandate. The League is asking for their members to contact members of the committee before the hearing this afternoon to express opposition to the bill with this language in it. I wrote about the whole issue of general plan conformance vs. advisory in my Sept. 6, 2023 blog posting, go on back and take a glance if this topic is of interest or concern to you, and then act accordingly.