Quick update on a couple of land use-related bills that popped out over the holiday weekend.

The first is HB527 – Mining Operations Amendments.  This bill would make some changes to the way mining operations or mining vested rights are determined and treated.  I surmise at least some of this had to do with the limestone quarry that was proposed in Parleys Canyon last year and caused some confusion between what the county land use regulations could do and the State mining regulator was allowed and had authority to do.

The second bill is SB271 – Home Ownership Requirements, which would say this:

Notwithstanding Section 10-9a-501 and Subsection 10-9a-503(1), a municipal
37     legislative body may not:
38          (a) enact or enforce a land use regulation that regulates co-owned homes differently
39     than other residential units; or
40          (b) use a land use regulation governing co-owned homes to fine, charge, prosecute, or
41     otherwise punish an individual solely for the act of owning or using a co-owned home.
42          (3) Notwithstanding Subsection (2), a legislative body may adopt and enforce land use
43     regulations, if the regulations are applied equally to all residential units, including co-owned
44     homes.

The bill defines co-owned homes as:

any residential unit that is jointly owned, in any manner
34     or form, by any combination of individuals or entities.

Is this even an issue?  I have to say I haven’t heard of anything to do with this.