S.B. 284 Local Land and Water Modifications: transcript

Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes. Uh, so I'm happy to be here for you As when this bill got numbered, it broke the record for the highest numbered bill I've ever had, and that record lasted for two days until my next bill, uh, came out. And so that is Not, I you're, you're not helping us. I know. It's, uh, I know. But that is my last one. At any rate, I'm pleased to have. So we have a land use bill here that is going to be jointly presented by the Property Rights Coalition and the League of Cities and Towns, uh, because it represents consensus language that they've worked on. Um, you know, the bill starts one way and now it's down to the consensus items. So I look forward to your consideration, and I'm gonna let Wade and Jared take over this Jared, right? Yes. Not Justin. Okay. Uh, so they'll talk about the specifics of the bill and we can answer questions.

Yes. Jared Ney with The League of Cities and Towns.

Hi, Wade Budge here on behalf of, uh, Snellen weRock. I'm a lawyer that represents property owners and developers.

Okay, go Ahead. Yeah. Thank you so much. Madam Chair and committee members. We have been working on a bill to provide some clarity in some important areas of law. And the reason why the land use law is so important and, and comes before you so many times is because it has wide implication and application throughout the state. Um, these laws are applied by lay bodies, lay people, meaning people who volunteer their time. We're talking planning commissioners, city council people, and they affect property owners. And so it's in our joint interest, both the league's interest and in the property rights coalitions interest to make sure that the rules are clear and to make sure that people can expect how it is that certain rules will be applied. And, and so when there's an opportunity to provide some clarity, we look for language that communicates that clarity. And in this case, we've added, I'll just highlight a few of the items that are in the bill before you, we've described what is a specified land use law. And what that means is oftentimes people will go and get projects approved with a development agreement. And we noted from a couple of instances that there's no real clear deadline of when, if someone wants to challenge it, is the deadline for challenging it. And so we thought we'd clarify that. So there's not a confusion. The intent is really to make sure people don't have to take matters to court, but they can work things out in advance. And if the deadlines are communicated, that helps everybody. So that's one of the important items. Another item is, it requires if a city has a website to go ahead and publish, what are the requirements to make us an application? And then what are the fees associated with that? And if they don't have a website, and it, it recognizes that too because we recognize there are cities that are small and can't, can't go through that process. But those are some of the items. And then the last one I'll mention is that there are occasionally disputes that occur, and there's a, the legislature encourages parties to work those out at the city level through an appeal body that happens at the city level. And what we've decided in this, in this legislation is to propose that, um, those who are the elected officials who are inva involved in policy weighing matters, they shouldn't get involved in that because they're often weighing the, um, heavier policy matters. And when you get to the point of an appeal, you need someone to, to look at the various components of the approval and decide if that was done correctly. So that, that's a clarification to make sure that appeals should be done in a way where they go to an actual appeal authority instead of going to the elected city council. And with that, that's all I have to share, but I, uh, happy to answer questions.

One, one thing, uh, that I'd add is one of the things that we wanted to take care of is when a planning commission meets and is looking over a land use regulation, uh, that's being proposed or development, uh, occasionally the, uh, the legislative body is waiting for the planning commission to give its recommendation. And current law says if there is an ordinance in place, then, then they can, then they can, uh, consider the, uh, the planning commission. Not making a recommendation is a negative recommendation. What this does is allows the, the legislative body to immediately make that, uh, decision whether, whether to approve or deny that land use regulation. So it, it essentially speeds up the process and, and, uh, keeps things moving forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so this is, there's no substitute on this, is that correct, Madam Chair? I don't, I don't have a substitute. I Don't. So yeah, because I, I was hearing that there might be a substitute, but, um, so some of the, um, input that I've heard, um, some, some of the negative, um, input is that it limits participation in hearings, um, and has an adverse effect, um, in, uh, sorry, I can't read that one. It prevents a legislative body from acting as an appeal authority for land use decisions. So it sounds though like some of those things have gotten, um, worked out. Would you talk about that, please?

Yeah, we are still working on some of the language points, but it is correct that, um, that it does say that a legislative body would no longer act as an appeal authority. I think when I've talked to mostly council member members I've spoken to, they welcome this. They don't want to get involved in, I can't say that I'm speaking for all of 'em. I mean, there's thousand plus city council people, but all we have found that the cases where a city has chosen to route all appeals to an appeal person or appeal body, like a board of adjustment or an appeal authority, that that is a better way to resolve disputes. But to your other comment, Senator, it is true that it states that appeals are to be held in public in a public meeting, so anyone could come and observe, but it does specify that those who participate in the appeal are only the property owner, those bringing the challenge and then the city. And so those are the, the ones who would participate. Um, I think that's important for a couple of reasons, because sometimes if you have an appeal, you don't want it to be, um, something where everybody who, who is who, um, isn't someone who's brought a challenge, but they're just curious or someone who just wants to make comments. We don't want 'em to dragged out or slow down that process or introduce things that aren't germane or important to that appeal. So that's a clarification. I I could see how some would interpret that and say that their rights to participate are being removed. But if they said that to me, I would respond by saying, if you're truly harmed, this doesn't change that you can still bring in a challenge if you're truly harmed under the statute. If you're, for instance, an adjoining property owner and someone's doing something next door, then you're what this, what the law already allows. Uh, you're what, uh, what is called an adversely affected party, and this doesn't change that.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, another question, if you may. Yes. So, um, sort of the overall feeling of this, um, bill and the input that I was getting is that it limits, um, local governments from, you know, enforcing their own zoning laws, but also some of the other things that you talked about. Is that something that is still being worked on or have? Is, is, would you comment on that? Um, criticism, please.

Um, prior version, I mean, we've been working on language, uh, and I'll be quite candid. Um, we're pushing for some other language that would, but it's not in what's before you.

Okay. So that's that I kept hearing.

So that is something that we've been advocating for but isn't in this because to what Senator Fillmore said, we've been working more on the consensus items at this point, and I'll allow Tingy to speak to that.

Yeah, we, we've been working for quite some time on, uh, modifications to this bill. I think what, what this one boils down to is places where we've been able to agree and come to, uh, uh, an agreement on it. There are still language, uh, tweaks to make here and there, but I think conceptually both of us or the stakeholders, uh, are all in agreement, um, as we've met. So, uh, I think that, uh, there will be another sub, but we would recommend it being passed out.

Thank you. Uh, thank you for your work on this and for, uh, working together. I, I think it's past due and I, I feel this even in just a little, little town of 1500, but to remove personalities from these decisions, I love the checklist. Here's the requirements. You meet 'em or you don't and, and not you meet 'em because you're related to somebody or that nonsense. That's right. Which actually still exists if you don't believe it. Uh, we can show you some instances. It's frustrating for all of our people. So thank you Senator for, for your work on that. And I think the transparency and the work ahead that you've done are probably going to eliminate a number of appeals.

Thank you. Um, will the appeal body be listed on that same site, though? So like, people know who the next step, if I'm denied, here's the next step. Because it seemed like too, if you could address this, it seemed like elected officials should be on the appeal body, so somebody's held accountable by a vote.

We could address that Madam Chair. Sure. Yeah. So, um, I think that what this contemplates and, and not having the legislative body being a part of the appeal right now, there's nothing that, uh, says in this bill that you've gotta have it on the website of who the appeal body is. Um, one of the things that we found, uh, in discussing with, uh, various cities and the processes that they've held with legislative bodies being on appeal, uh, as acting as an appeal body, is they tech, they, they usually are the ones that make the land use policy themselves. So in coming back around, um, it, it, it, it works better when the legislative, uh, those making the decisions aren't also back around to the appeal body. And, um, and also, uh, a big key part of, of providing, um, fairness and transparency and, and is, is to have a body that is focused on, uh, the facts in front of them instead of the, uh, public clamor sometimes can, can sway certain decisions that appeals should be impartial. Yeah. And so that's, it is something that cities, uh, also support. Okay.

Thank you Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mike Oster, Millard speaking on behalf of the Property Rights Coalition and the Utah Association of Realtors. Were obviously fully in support of the bill. Thanks to Senator Fillmore and, uh, Senator Kwan. I'll just say, you know, it's Senator Fillmore's bill. He makes all the decisions, obviously, but we're gonna get to yes on this. We've done this a lot of times on these bills, and we'll figure it out by the time it comes to the Senate. We'll have a consensus complete Bill ready for you. So we'd appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 2 84 to the full body of the Senate.

I think I'll waive. Okay. Senator Waive. Okay.

Representative Teuscher, I move. We adjourn.

people who are representing, uh, realtors and property owners and developers, uh, as well as people representing land use authorities in the state, mostly cities and counties. So this is one of those bills and it's big and long, and it's about to get bigger and longer because there were two bills, one in the house and one in the Senate. But in our ever increasing quest to reduce the number of bills before the legislature, we are subsuming, uh, Representative Koford house bill on this topic into this bill. So we are taking two consensus land use bills and combining them into one land use bill in the substitute that I'm going to move now I would like to move to delete entitled and Body Senate bill 2 84 and replace it with first substitute Senate Bill 2 84.

course, these bills, Mr. President are twice as long as they need to be because every change you make in the city code, you have to make again in the county code. And we end up, you know, pasting that entire code in a bill. So I'm sure this is over a hundred pages long now. So let me summarize what it does. We we're seeking here to strengthen and modernize Utah's municipal incorporation and land use framework. It updates the rules for feasibility requests. So communities have a clear, predictable path when exploring incorporation. The bill tightens. Deadlines clarifies when signatures can be reused and adds a fair process for landowners in newly added areas to request exclusion. It also standardizes how supplemental feasibility studies are triggered, paid for and completed ensuring transparency, consistency for both residents and counties. This substitute also cleans up and reorganizes key land use definitions like adversely affected party boundary adjustment, land use applicant and municipal utility easement. These clarifications reduce ambiguity for cities, applicants and courts, and they align our statutes with the way land use decisions are already made on the ground. So overall, Senate bill 2 84 improves clarity, fairness, and predictability and incorporation and land use processes, helping communities navigate growth with confidence and reducing conflict between residents and local governments.

Yes. Uh, we'll, the sponsor Yield. Senator Fillmore, will you yield?

I will try. Senator Winterton.

Okay. Having not read the substitute, can you tell me whether or not a current project would fall under these regulations? Say they wait until July 1st and, and then move forward. Do they get to be grandfathered in or is this gonna be, I thought you were trying to get me. Sorry,

What we have to ad Thank you Mr. President. There's only one effective date for the bill and that would be effective on May 6, 20, 26. Processes that have already started would continue under current law.

Thank you Mr. President. Um, I know that you said these are two bills that are together and I'm sorry I missed the one that you mentioned. Uh, can you tell me which bill it was that you combined this with again? Um,

It'll take me a minute, Mr. President and longer if I misspell the representative's name. Okay. I'll fill the time.

Within that, uh, I see that the Utah League of Cities and Towns is watching this bill or position pending. And then I noticed that, uh, a few of those bills that the sponsor you mentioned, they are neutral supporting and watching also. So I'm wondering where the League of Cities and towns are with this bill.

You. Yeah, that's an easy question to answer that all of the language in this bill has been vetted and approved by the League of Cities and Towns. That said, I am very confident that they will find a word that needs to be capitalized among these 200 pages. And so I expect that there will be further clarification from them. But at this point, every word in here, uh, is consensus language between the league and the counties on one side and the Property Rights Coalition on the other side. And that senator, that's true for the, for the substitute that have from both bills.

Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

You. I move that first substitute Senate Bill 2 84. Be read a third time. Thank you. The question is, shall first substitute Senate Bill 2 84? Be read a third time roll call vote.

Thank you Mr. President. We debated this a bit yesterday. Again, this is, um, this, uh, local land use modifications, right where we are just making, uh, standard updates. Uh, you know, these land use bills come every year because that group that was with us here in the morning, uh, gets together regularly combs through the land use, uh, land use regulations for both cities and counties. Uh, they, they suggest changes. They negotiate those changes and the end result is typically, uh, a bill like this where we are just making tweaks to help the process run better, to help property owners to help cities operate more efficiently, to help make the system more predictable. Um, so the fiscal note has caught up with this. Now again, I'm not aware of any opposition to the bill from any of the stakeholders. Uh, as a matter of fact, they all get together at, at their suggestion, uh, everything in here was what they have worked on over the course of the last year. Thank you Mr. President.

Thank you. I move that first substitute Senate Bill 2 84 pass.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. A motion to circle

I would. Um, this bill has not received a house committee hearing. It was on the agenda, but the, um, Senator was presenting in another committee and we ran out of time. So there's a sixth sub that just dropped this afternoon. We'd like to give everybody a minute to read it.

It can be, uh, regulated on the exterior but not the interior. And then a second said that the city has to make a plan before they can implement a water action. I move to Concur.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt sub six of House Senate bill 2 84.

I would be happy to speak to it. This may take a moment. That's Fine. Take your Time. Colleagues. This this bill has, um, was on the schedule for a house hearing and as I mentioned before, we circled the bill. It did not make it in time because the Senate sponsor was presenting in another committee. So I wanna walk through the changes on this bill and lead with the fact that this is a consensus bill. This bill has been worked on for a long time with a number of stakeholders who have all been at the table to come to agreement on some important changes. Um, the first thing that this bill does is it adds in HB 4 39, which is a water planning, um, bill that was also a consensus bill. It will help the state water engineer work with all of our communities across the state to develop a 40 year water plan in order to forecast water, supply and demand. Um, the main differences between the other main differences between this sub and the first sub is that, um, in order to streamline the process, we brought in some language from House Bill 4 77, which was my original land use bill. Um, it, it addresses incorporation changes model home and open house changes, planning and commission planning, commission training, a removal pro, a removal process, um, some posting of the land use laws and fees, some a new process for conditional use permits and bond payments. It also moves the water exaction language to a second section or to a new section of code. It requires some land use application checklists of cities to be published. There's some limitations on third start, third party remedies, um, and some changes to attached dwelling units. Again, all of this language has been consensus language. I know it is a very long bill. Hopefully you've had a chance to read sub six. Um, and with that Mr. Speaker, those are the major changes.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues. As I mentioned, this is a big bill, um, largely because many of the co, much of the code has to go in both the city section of code and the county section of code. Um, it streamlines the incorporation process so that after the initial incorporation process, owners who haven't been included have the same rights as those who were initially included in that process. Um, in terms of the model home language, um, model homes function very similarly to open houses and they are regulated under the same framework in this new language. When we look at planning commissions, Mr. Speaker, there are, they have a really unique function within a city. They have an administrative role, they have a legislative role, and they have a quasi-judicial role. It's really important that planning commissioners understand and know when to exercise those three different roles. And this bill helps to clarify that it helps to clarify a process where they can recuse themselves if they need to. And it puts all of the control of that in the hands of the local authorities. So the local governing bodies, um, when it comes to posting land use laws and fees, this bill, um, opens up a more transparent process so that the ordinances are posted and the these schedules are easy to find when it comes to, um, conditional use permits. And that process, this bill clarifies a new conditional use that the new conditional uses don't require planning commission approval and it streamlines the processes for landowners. Um, the bond language in the bill specifies that the interest requirements apply only to cash bonds, which are submitted after May of 2025 and it prevents any retroactive potential disputes. The bill further, um, requires land use application checklist to be published. If a city or a county has a website, it needs to be published on the website. If not, it needs to be posted in an office. I had mentioned that the exaction statute is just being moved into another section to improve the statutory organization. There's no change to those exactions. The limitations on third party statutory remedies limits enforcements of the remedies to the municipalities and it directly and directly affected applicants. I think it's important to note that it preserves the city's ability to delegate, to control the land use authority and prevents private properties from substituting their own preferences. Um, legislative bodies are prevented from serving

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I should speak faster and watch the clock. Legislative bodies can act as their own appeal process. This clears that up. The p of proof for land use applicants is on third parties and ADUs are generally allowed on 11,000 square foot lots as a state standard. And I'm open to questions after that.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise in support of this bill. I've had the opportunity to participate in a lot of these discussions in the past and appreciate, uh, the work that the legacies and towns, the uac, uh, property Rights Coalition, all coming together to make, uh, coordinated efforts to work in the interim to make sure that we have a good bill that comes forward and, and has been discussed and agreed upon by all parties. So just appreciate all those interesting, all the different interests coming together and, and making sure we have a good bill and appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill because it will allow external ADUs in, in most places still what the city's able to control. But if we want housing to get cheaper, we've gotta find ways to allow smaller housing and ways to allow less expensive housing. And this is one great way that has been worked on for a long time and I'm so glad to see it come to this conclusion.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill as well. This Luma Bill is an annual bill that's presented and each year it takes a tremendous amount of work from multiple organizations throughout the entire year working together in consensus. This as a bottom line foundation elements that will help the housing at obtainability and affordability issues as land use is a part of zoning and important decisions to be able to help increase the supply. So I rise in support of this Lud bill and appreciate everyone's work on it to get it to this consensus point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I appreciate, um, the comments that have made, been made this bill. The reason there are six subs is because of the many, many stakeholders that have been involved in this. The process has been deliberate. It has been deliberated heavily. It has been heavily, heavily negotiated. Our goal in this is to make sure that local control is honored and yet that we're moving the needle so that we can increase housing supply. Um, this bill is a consensus bill and I am overwhelmed a little bit with it. It's not an easy lift, but grateful to have been able to help with this and I urge my colleague support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt sub six of House Senate bill 2 84.

I would be happy to speak to it. This may take a moment. That's

Time. Colleagues. This this bill has, um, was on the schedule for a house hearing and as I mentioned before, we circled the bill. It did not make it in time because the Senate sponsor was presenting in another committee. So I wanna walk through the changes on this bill and lead with the fact that this is a consensus bill. This bill has been worked on for a long time with a number of stakeholders who have all been at the table to come to agreement on some important changes. Um, the first thing that this bill does is it adds in HB 4 39, which is a water planning, um, bill that was also a consensus bill. It will help the state water engineer work with all of our communities across the state to develop a 40 year water plan in order to forecast water, supply and demand. Um, the main differences between the other main differences between this sub and the first sub is that, um, in order to streamline the process, we brought in some language from House Bill 4 77, which was my original land use bill. Um, it, it addresses incorporation changes model home and open house changes, planning and commission planning, commission training, a removal pro, a removal process, um, some posting of the land use laws and fees, some a new process for conditional use permits and bond payments. It also moves the water exaction language to a second section or to a new section of code. It requires some land use application checklists of cities to be published. There's some limitations on third start, third party remedies, um, and some changes to attached dwelling units. Again, all of this language has been consensus language. I know it is a very long bill. Hopefully you've had a chance to read sub six. Um, and with that Mr. Speaker, those are the major changes.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues. As I mentioned, this is a big bill, um, largely because many of the co, much of the code has to go in both the city section of code and the county section of code. Um, it streamlines the incorporation process so that after the initial incorporation process, owners who haven't been included have the same rights as those who were initially included in that process. Um, in terms of the model home language, um, model homes function very similarly to open houses and they are regulated under the same framework in this new language. When we look at planning commissions, Mr. Speaker, there are, they have a really unique function within a city. They have an administrative role, they have a legislative role, and they have a quasi-judicial role. It's really important that planning commissioners understand and know when to exercise those three different roles. And this bill helps to clarify that it helps to clarify a process where they can recuse themselves if they need to. And it puts all of the control of that in the hands of the local authorities. So the local governing bodies, um, when it comes to posting land use laws and fees, this bill, um, opens up a more transparent process so that the ordinances are posted and the these schedules are easy to find when it comes to, um, conditional use permits. And that process, this bill clarifies a new conditional use that the new conditional uses don't require planning commission approval and it streamlines the processes for landowners. Um, the bond language in the bill specifies that the interest requirements apply only to cash bonds, which are submitted after May of 2025 and it prevents any retroactive potential disputes. The bill further, um, requires land use application checklist to be published. If a city or a county has a website, it needs to be published on the website. If not, it needs to be posted in an office. I had mentioned that the exaction statute is just being moved into another section to improve the statutory organization. There's no change to those exactions. The limitations on third party statutory remedies limits enforcements of the remedies to the municipalities and it directly and directly affected applicants. I think it's important to note that it preserves the city's ability to delegate, to control the land use authority and prevents private properties from substituting their own preferences. Um, legislative bodies are prevented from serving

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I should speak faster and watch the clock. Legislative bodies can act as their own appeal process. This clears that up. The p of proof for land use applicants is on third parties and ADUs are generally allowed on 11,000 square foot lots as a state standard. And I'm open to questions after that.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise in support of this bill. I've had the opportunity to participate in a lot of these discussions in the past and appreciate, uh, the work that the legacies and towns, the uac, uh, property Rights Coalition, all coming together to make, uh, coordinated efforts to work in the interim to make sure that we have a good bill that comes forward and, and has been discussed and agreed upon by all parties. So just appreciate all those interesting, all the different interests coming together and, and making sure we have a good bill and appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill because it will allow external ADUs in, in most places still what the city's able to control. But if we want housing to get cheaper, we've gotta find ways to allow smaller housing and ways to allow less expensive housing. And this is one great way that has been worked on for a long time and I'm so glad to see it come to this conclusion.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill as well. This Luma Bill is an annual bill that's presented and each year it takes a tremendous amount of work from multiple organizations throughout the entire year working together in consensus. This as a bottom line foundation elements that will help the housing at obtainability and affordability issues as land use is a part of zoning and important decisions to be able to help increase the supply. So I rise in support of this Lud bill and appreciate everyone's work on it to get it to this consensus point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I appreciate, um, the comments that have made, been made this bill. The reason there are six subs is because of the many, many stakeholders that have been involved in this. The process has been deliberate. It has been deliberated heavily. It has been heavily, heavily negotiated. Our goal in this is to make sure that local control is honored and yet that we're moving the needle so that we can increase housing supply. Um, this bill is a consensus bill and I am overwhelmed a little bit with it. It's not an easy lift, but grateful to have been able to help with this and I urge my colleague support.