The Land Use Task Force bill is now out.  It is HB406 – LUDMA Modifications.  These are the areas the bill addresses (not all of them in LUDMA):

• Annexation – the bill modifies the definition of “rural real property,” primarily to indicate that it must consist of at least 1,000 acres (this part was inadvertently left out when rural real property was first inserted into the annexation code a few years ago, and has been the cause of stymying several proposed annexations), and also that it must be within the area proposed for annexation. The bill would also clarify partial annexations of islands or peninsula areas, and indicates that if an area is subject to more than one annexation proposal, the preference of the property owners must be considered.  This is not the more comprehensive rewrite of the annexation code that has been worked on.  That will likely not happen until next year.
• Development agreements – inserts a provision that if the DA curtails an owners’ rights under state or local code, it must be explicitly noted in the DA. It also appears to say that if everything that would be in the DA is something the local entity already has addressed in it’s land use codes, then a DA cannot be used.
• “Moratoriums” – I put this in parentheses because the term itself is not used anywhere in LUDMA. This kind of action generally falls into one of two categories – a pending ordinance, or a temporary land use ordinance.  These two seem to get conflated with each other and makes things a bit confusing.  Unfortunately, this bill only seems to make things more confusing about when a TLUO can or cannot be enacted by a local government, depending on if they have been operating under a pending ordinance situation.  It seems to prohibit the application of a TLUO to an application that has also been subject to a pending ordinance restriction, but then it seems to extend that prohibition to an application that was filed within 12 months (?).  I’ve had our legal expert at ULUI look at this, and his explanation is long and filled with uncertainties as well.  This language needs work!

A couple of other bills as well:

HB408 – Mobile Business Licensing Amendments – this bill seems to revamp the whole scheme for regulation of food trucks, ice cream trucks and carts, taco carts, mobile sharpeners, any business that is not in a permanent structure.  Look it over.

SB181 – Campaign Sign Amendments – creates a category of political signs for those running for office, and says that if such signs in public rights-of-way need to be removed, the entity owning that ROW can charge the campaign for removing those signs.

Just a note, there’s been lots of buzz about the subdivision provisions in SB174, and ongoing negotiations with the sponsor and those of interest to make changes.  We’ll see where that goes.  The bill is up for hearing in Senate committee this afternoon at 2:00 and will likely go through as is, I suspect amendments will come later.