The summary of all the bills we are following is coming, I promise, but right now let’s just get caught up on recent actions from the last couple of days.
Gravel pit wars. They are indeed heating up again. This is something that has been a big issue in the past, and then the last year or two kind of settled down a bit as cities/counties and gravel operators “talked” about where to go on local regulation. But things have now rather exploded again. The first shot was introduction of S.B. 172 Protection Areas Revisions, which we summarized in our post of Feb. 5. Here’s a KUTV news story about the bill and some of the related happenings in Draper City. The bill had been scheduled for a committee hearing, but after all the furor about it (the League took a “hell no” position on the bill), it was pulled from committee and sent back to the Rules Committee, usually a sign that a bill is in trouble. But yesterday a bill that would be far more draconian was introduced – H.B. 502 Critical Infrastructure and Mining. This bill would… well, let me just show the actual bill language:
By no later than December 31, 2024, the ordinances of a political subdivision
30 shall allow critical infrastructure materials operations and mining operations as a permitted or
31 conditional use, subject to standards that are:
32 (i) determined by the political subdivision; and
33 (ii) consistent with this chapter.
34 (b) A political subdivision whose ordinances do not comply with Subsection (1)(a) by
35 December 31, 2024, is considered to allow critical infrastructure materials operations and
36 mining operations as a permitted use without regard to any contrary provision in the political
37 subdivisions land use ordinances.
38 (c) A political subdivision may not restrict, prohibit, or impose a condition that would
39 unreasonably limit critical infrastructure materials operations or mining operations.
It gets better:
A standard in effect on May 1,
47 2024, that unreasonably restricts, prohibits, or limits critical infrastructure materials operations
48 or mining operations, including overlay zoning, does not apply to critical infrastructure
49 materials operations or mining operations.
The bill then goes on to require that all counties, in their general plans, prepare and adopt an element on critical infrastructure materials:
By no later than November 30, 2024, a county legislative body shall adopt a
80 critical infrastructure materials plan meeting the requirements of Subsection (2) that provides
81 for how the county will ensure that there is adequate critical infrastructure materials operations
82 in the county to supply the demand for critical infrastructure measured by the county’s
83 population as of May 1, 2024, and the county’s projected population in 2044.
84 (b) A county shall update the plan described in Subsection (1)(a) every five years
85 measuring the demand for critical infrastructure materials based on the county’s population in
86 the year the updated plan is adopted and the county’s projected population 20 years from the
87 year the updated plan is adopted.
There’s lots more to this bill, but you get the idea. I’m pretty sure there will be strong opposition from cities and counties. Watch out for this one.
Starter Homes and Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size bill, HB306, which we featured in our Feb. 6 post, may not be dead yet! (apologies to Monty Python) A substitute version of the bill has been released, which has not (yet) been adopted, which would drop the minimum lot size language, but keep the wording defining what a “starter home” is, and stipulate that such starter homes would be permitted uses in all “urban municipality” residential zones. Hmmm. Not sure what that accomplishes. I think the starter home definition still needs some work, take a look and let us know what you think. Not sure if this is going to go anywhere.
Scenic Byways. The bill that would have done away with the permanent Scenic Byways Committee and established ad hoc committees, which would have included a representative from the outdoor advertising industry, was substituted to keep the original provision. But it also adds the provision that any final decision on designation for a new scenic byway must be approved by the state legislature. Here’s the revised bill – S.B. 28 Scenic Byway Program Amendments – and a SL Trib story about it.
HTRZ Changes. Sen. Wayne Harper has introduced a bill that would make a number of changes to the details for housing in Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones, including level of affordability, acreage requirements and restrictions, and others. Take a look – S.B. 208 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments
Riparian Areas Plan Element. The bill that would add a new required general plan element, for riparian areas – H.B. 243 Riparian Amendments – is up for hearing in committee tomorrow morning at 8:00. I’ve heard pros about this bill, but also cons in that it just adds another complicated, technical element that must be included in local general plans, and may open the door for more such to come (like wildlife impact, critical infrastructure materials, etc., etc., etc.?)
Annexation. While the consensus housing/land use bill H.B. 476 Municipal Land Use Regulation Modifications contains many of the items that were discussed and agreed to during the interim, it does not include the changes to the annexation code that were developed by a working group. Word is that those are still being worked on by legislative staff and will be amended into the bill upcoming. We can only hope!
That’s enough for today, I’m sure I’ve overwhelmed most of you already. As stated at the beginning, a summary of all the followed bills coming.