H.B. 544 County Land Use Authority Amendments: transcript

Thank you chair and committee. Um, this bill responds directly to the issues identified in ombudsperson opinions 91, 39 and one 90 by establishing a narrow objective baseline for legacy parcels that predates subdivision approval requirements. It empowers more property owners to achieve increased beneficial use of their property for a single family dwelling, while preserving zoning authority, infrastructure standards, and public health and safety protections, and also helping mitigate the housing shortage. It provides clarity, consistency, and fairness without broadly rewriting subdivision law. Um, also, I forgot to say, I have an amendment that will need to be adopted. Um, amendment one. And I have a co-presenter, Chris Bramwell. Um, so the problem across Utah, there are parcels of land that were created decades ago by deed or other written instrument, but were never formally plotted as subdivision lots. In many cases, these parcels exist as separate parcels and county records are located in zones where single family dwelling is permitted or a permitted or conforming use. They predate the time when the county first required subdivision approval plating to create a lot for single family dwelling, but they do not have a clear statutory pathway to qualify for plan review or a building permit. And over time, there have been many complaints received by the ombudsperson, including those that I've mentioned. Um, under HB 5 44 as amended, we have a clear statewide baseline rule. In response to these recurring issues, a parcel will now have a clear pathway to plan review for a single family dwelling. If the parcel is located in a zone where a single family dwelling is per a permitted or conditional use, the parcel was created before the county ever required subdivision approval to create a lot for a single family dwelling in that zone. And the parcel owner can demonstrate that the parcel qualifies under the statute. If those conditions are met, the county must accept and process a plan review application for a single family dwelling unit. Um, the health and safety and local standards still apply. And I want to let, uh, Chris give an example of an instance of this,

Uh, Christopher Bramwell here. I'm here in my role as a, a private constituent and citizen. Um, so my family has actually gone through this experience. Uh, we own a parcel land in a rural area of Utah County where the land was subdivided, uh, in 1936 by Mets and bounds description. Uh, the parcel was not recorded until 1942, but the county didn't adopt its first zoning ordinance until December of 1942 after that parcel, uh, was, was recorded. Um, this is also unique in that the parcel when it was sold was platted on a plat map, but the company went out of business before the first county ordinance went into place that required approval for of plat map. So there's multiple aspects of complexity here, and because this is not a lot, but it's a platted lot, but it's a parcel. Um, it requires a lot more hoops to jump through in order to get a, a qualified for a, uh, single family dwelling building permit. And that makes sense. Uh, government processes are usually built for standard masses. These are edge cases we're talking about, but there are hundreds of parcels, uh, in, in each county that predate their existing ordinance. So in our situation, it's took almost, uh, five years to actually work through the process to obtain water, uh, road frontage, go through PERC test. Um, we at one point had to go to go through mediation to get it recognized for a zone clearance to even be approved. And, and this is while there's actually very similar situated lots that were subdivided after, also parcels that that had, uh, building permits issued. And so it's, it's a complex mix when you're dealing with these, these old parcels that, that were never actually platted. So this will just provide a very clear, narrow path for parcels that predated all ordinance governing the parcels. So if it predates an ordinance requiring county approval to be platted, they would now be essentially, uh, grandfathered in as a qualifying parcel. And if they can meet all the requirements of, in a zone that allows single family dwellings meet health safety requirements, setbacks still have frontage, you would now have a clearer path, uh, to obtain a single family dwelling building permit. That's our presentation. Okay.

Oh, I have a question on the amendment, so I guess I'll wait till we come to the amendment.

Uh, thank you, uh, Madam Vice chair, I spoke with a sponsor about this particular issue, um, and when I spoke, I, I, uh, the context that I was looking at was a municipal issue. Right Now you're focused exclusively on a county, is that correct?

Not a municipal. Correct. Right. Yeah.

Okay. Yes. I I, I appreciate that clarification. Um, I, uh, I don't think that changes my feelings, but anyway, I, I appreciate that clarification might be something we wanna work on in the future. So, uh, I have a, uh, a situation in my county where there's a municipality with the same challenge. It's just a municipal issue, not a county issue. So, thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think when in our county, or when I used to be running be part of this, we call 'em lots of record, but there are some things you've just discussed, uh, that would probably predate even records that the county would hold. Now, in the seventies when zoning started, there were plots that were set in, well, that weren't changed since the seventies. And if each one of those became a lot of record, which could be used, you're saying you're providing a plat map that you have that the county doesn't have, or is this something that they actually can provide a record for too as well?

Um, so a, as I read the bill as written, um, it's up to the owner to provide the substantial evidence. So that's, that's the standard in here. You have to provide substantial evidence of when the actual subdivision occurred. And then in the land use ordinance for counties, it defines what would, would qualify a subdivision. Uh, a plat map could do that a lot. Lots of these parcels actually are recorded deeds, though by mets and bounds description. And that usually then becomes, uh, the, the evidence needed. And so what happened though is it may have been recorded, it may have been by mets and bounds, but mets and bounds is not a approved plat map. That actually is a, a survey showing easements and everything else. So, uh, what I have, I, I have multiple, you know, forms of substantial evidence. My lots have been taken care of through mediation, but I had to spend hundreds of hours on that. It most Utah shouldn't have to go through that many hoops

Follow up. If I could. Go ahead. So, so just one more question then, related to that. If I had the same situation, what would I need to do to prove that to my county? Would I have to have some personal record that, or is this something they've got recorded?

Uh, your meets and bounds description, if it was formalized, should have been recorded as well.

So did you find that Oh, Yeah. Case on yours. Oh, yeah, yeah. Our,

our pla our pla our lots were, were recorded deeds, but just because it's a recorded deeds, that is a formal recorded record, but a recorded deed is not an approved plat. So you'll, you'll have lots of record like that, that there are officially on the record. And, and that's the majority of the cases. Um, but they're still just a parcel and they're not, they're not a, a pla platted lot Getting those approved as a building permitted lot is where your problem is. Yeah, this is essentially open it up and it's, it's like the, the most narrow view of the ombuds opinion. 'cause the ombudsman recommended for any parcel at any time, there should be a process for a post division approval process based off the standards in place at the time that, that's very broad and complex. So as we we're with counties and uac, that was the biggest concern of the original bill. So it narrowed it down just to parcels that even preexisting any ordinance, which is like the foundational baseline to then start the discussion of how do you handle all the other lots that, and this is, this is common where it happens, especially in the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, where it may have been subdivided by mets and bounds, but it was not platted. And so what's the process to help those owners get beneficial use, which has many values to raise tax base, more single family housing and things

Like that. I get that lots of records are handled differently in different places. I guess in my county, that wasn't an issue. It was covered under laws, it was, and or as it is now, if this improves or makes it clear, I'm okay with that too. Thank you.

So, uh, I believe it's, I, we've identified two counties now. What you're gonna find in the ombuds opinion is they all actually come from different counties and it's edge cases, everyone ends up being somewhat unique. So between the ombuds opinions and multiple lawsuits related to parcels and locks of record, um, it is not standardized counties. Uh, most counties as we talked to uac, have implemented, um, ad hoc processes or they have processes to address it. Uh, but they're all disparate processes. What happened in Utah County recently was there was an attempt to introduce ordinance that actually for every single one of these parcels, it was now gonna introduce a minimum lot size requirement, which is not what the ombuds person recommended. They recommended should be the standards that existed at the time. And they said any lot over or under one acre, uh, would no longer qualify and could not have a building permit. So you lose almost any beneficial use and you're gonna have many parcels that, uh, even a half acre of 0.75, most lots are in being built in Utah are nowhere near that. Um, and, and or nor can you afford it. So, so this does account for what happened in Utah County, but then sets a baseline to say, here's a minimum standard for all counties to ensure, don't go that direction.

When we, so we've had quite a few UX actually been really great to work with and even the counties. Um, we started, uh, like a month and a half ago, but we ended up, I guess talking to the wrong UAC group. And so it, uh, we've had to reset the last week, but what we heard is actually a lot of counties have processes for this. So in talking to the drafting attorney, it was meant to ensure they can still use existing process. This is just then the minimum requirement. So it'd still go through the same plan review process. This is just saying here's the minimum standards, uh, that apply and the threshold for what would be a qualifying parcel. So there the intention is not to have some overriding, like, Hey, you have to do this exact thing. It's just a minimum baseline.

So go ahead. Craig Cusick. Hello everyone. Can you hear? Can you hear me okay? Yes, go ahead. Very good, thank you. And I know we're short on time, uh, but I just want to echo my personal situation that I think ties into everything that's been discussed already. Uh, name is Craig Cusick. I'm a resident in Utah County. I'm a landowner. Um, uh, I'll just hit a few points here. Um, I'll give you my specific situation. I own a, uh, a third of an acre, uh, ro rural land that is unincorporated county land. Um, and, and to this point, it was created before 1942. Uh, this, this land has sat in my family since that time period. Um, my parcel sits right next to other pieces of land right next to mine that are about half the size or even smaller than that, uh, many of which have, uh, currently a legal single family dwelling, um, that that is on it. Um, yet because of the complex zoning requirements and current process, uh, that I think Chris and others have highlighted, I, uh, I have found it extremely difficult the last few years to get through this exact process. Um, my property, I think, based on my understanding, is the exact type of parcel that Ombudsman Opinion 90 was intended to protect. Um, recently the county, I think as mentioned by Chris, I'll just be, uh, more specifically here. Uh, the county was trying to make an attempt to minimize, uh, the size of an acre, uh, to at least one acre size, uh, in the community where I own land more than 75%. Uh, please Wrap it up Of the, of the, okay, I'll be quick. Uh, of the parcels in my area are smaller than that, so in short right. My, my parcel can meet all help, safety, frontage, setback requirements. Uh, I just wanna echo my full support, uh, of this new bill. Um, is, is my intent here, so, Okay. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Um, yeah, my name is Victoria Del. Um, I also just wanted to, uh, uh, share my support for this bill and ask you guys support it as well. I have also, um, my family owns a parcel in rural county land. We've had it for several years. It was one that was like also subdivided before these land use ordinances were in effect. And, um, for several years we've put in the effort to make the land buildable. Same thing with like road frontage, water tests. We've addressed water rights, um, everything that's required to qualify for a single family home. And it's just been incredibly difficult and it's been a real struggle. And I believe that it shouldn't be that hard for, um, a Utah citizen to build a single family home. And I don't feel like we should have to jump through all these hoops that aren't apparent until you're in the process of it. And I also agree with what's been said that there's been enough ombudsman person complaints and opinions to justify a statewide standard. Um, and so, yeah, I would just ask that you guys also support this bill.

I move to adopt amendment number one. The motion is to adopt amendment number one. Is there discussion to that motion? May, may I speak To that? Okay. Um, yes. So when you go to the sponsor, I have a question for her. On line 98, it's says We're a single family dwellings permitted or conditional use. I'm just wondering why you are including conditional use. It seems like maybe I'm misreading conditional use. There may be some conditions that are appropriate to place on. It seems that this would be overriding that. So why are we including conditional use on that? And that's my question and my motion.

Could just be permitted use.

I, um, so I, I think that we, it should not be in there. I think it should be permitted use.

Uh, when we were, uh, working with the drafting attorney on that, I know we discussed it being conforming use, I think that's the standard term used in the county land use ordinance code. But permitted use or conforming use, uh, is the intended purpose. You should only have a single family dwelling in an area for these where it's actually a, an authorized or conforming use. I don't think there's any discussion of permitted use or a condition Of use. Not conditional. Yeah.

Okay. Make, okay. I Modifying my motion. Make, yes. I have a question if I may. Go ahead. Do you need the word conforming or is permitted use? I think, I think permitted is good. Permitted, I would say is equivalent to Conform. I'll modify my motion if I may, and to adopt amendment number one, but, uh, modifying on line 98, bottom line, deleting the word, uh, or conditional. So it'll just read a dwelling as a permitted use.

Yes, I'm fine with that. Thank

Sure. I move that we recommend favorably house bill 5 44 as amended.

that motion? Okay. Into the sponsor. Just this is not intended to be the final word on this issue. It's just kind of opening the door for exploration. And thank you for your time.

Madam Reading Clerk House Bill 5 44 County Land use authority amendments by Representative Shelley eight. This bill was heard in political subdivisions of the vote of 7 1 4. Representative

Shelley, Thank you Mr. Speaker. HB 5 54 solves a real recurring property, uh, property rights problem across Utah. There are legacy parcels that were created decades ago by deed. Long before many counties required subdivision plaid approval. These parcels exist as separate tax parcels. They sit in zones where single family homes are allowed and they meet health and safety standards. But because they were never formally platted, many owners cannot even submit a plan for review. This issue has generated several, um, property rights ombudsperson complaints and HB 5 44 creates a straightforward statewide baseline to help increase property rights for individuals and increase housing supply. Property owners must still comply with existing zoning health and safety standards and infrastructure requirements. Counties retain enforcement authority and this brings in consistency across the counties so that similarly situated, um, property owners are treated similarly, counties can use their existing processes to meet the requirements of the bill. This improves predictability, fairness, legal clarity protects property rights and creates another avenue to increase housing. And that is the bill.

Yes. There was a technical glitch and we need to redo the vote in order to fix that.

So do I speak to the bill or just to the need to vote again?

Okay. So there were two amendments. We were only supposed to have adopted one, but somehow accidentally adopted both. So we've taken the one out and now we just need to vote again to make sure. Well, so we can send it over to the Senate.

Uh, it was unanimous last time. I hope it still is. Thank you.