This bill is a product of the Land Use Task Force and amends the Land Use Development and Management Act (LUDMA) at both the city and county level. The Task Force--which consists of the Utah Realtors Association, Utah Homebuilders Association, private developers, city planners, lawyers, and managers, and the Office of Property Rights Ombudsman--worked to clarify seven areas in LUDMA: (1) definitions; (2) land use authority; (3) plats; (4) vacation and dedication of streets; (5) judicial review of land use decisions; (6) boundary line agreements; and (7) referendum. The bill also expands the scope of LUDMA’s purpose to include facilitation of orderly growth and inclusion of a variety of housing types.

(1) Definitions 

The definition of “infrastructure improvement” is narrowed to specify that it must be essential for public health and safety or required for occupation. Definitions for “lot” and “parcel” are added to delineate that a lot is part of a subdivision plat and a parcel is not. A “municipal utility easement” is defined as an easement recorded on a plat for public utility services, as distinguished from a protected utility easement. “Public street” is defined broadly to include all types of roads, as well as viaducts, byways, alleys, trails, subways, tunnels, and bridges. 

(2) Land Use Authority

Utah Code 10-9a-104(1) empowered cities to enact stricter land use regulations and higher standards than required under LUDMA and HB 315 clarifies that a municipality’s land use regulations must not conflict with state statute. HB 315 also requires that legislative bodies designate allowed general uses when amending or creating a zoning district and to classify all uses as either permitted or conditional.  

The bill outlines the timeline under which cities must make a determination on a land use application by clarifying that after a reasonable period of time, an applicant may send a written request asking the city to make a final determination; cities have 45 days from the date they receive the written request to take final action on the application. 

Cities may not impose private infrastructure improvements that are not required under building or fire codes, flood or storm water management provisions, street and access requirements, or other essential public safety improvements as adopted by ordinance and cities must establish at least two acceptable forms of completion assurance for subdivision landscaping or infrastructure improvements. HB 315 provides that a city may withhold a certificate of occupancy (COO) when the city and a land use applicant have entered into a written agreement to withhold the COO under certain conditions, or a land use applicant did not provide financial assurance for required landscaping or infrastructure improvements as required under the city’s ordinances. 

The bill clarifies that a legislative body may act as an appeal authority on a land use decision or the legislative body and appellant may agree to a third-party appeal authority. 

Regarding planning commissions, the bill clarifies that the outlined statutory powers and duties specific to a planning commission may be initiated or proposed at the city level. Also, legislative bodies may pass an ordinance outlining a procedural default that allows the legislative body to consider a planning commission’s failure to make a determination on an application within a certain time period a negative recommendation. 

(3) Plats

HB 315 prohibits a county recorder from recording a plat unless the city has approved and signed the plat. The bill also permits cities to establish an administrative process to approve subdivisions with 10 lots or less without a plat. 

(4) Vacation and Dedication of Streets 

The bill allows for cities, as well as property owners, to petition to vacate a street or municipal utility easement. HB 315 clarifies that dedication of unimproved public streets does not impose liability upon a city unless adequate financial assurance is provided and the city accepts the dedication. 

(5) Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions

HB 315 states that a district court may affirm or reverse a land use decision and if the court reverses the decision, the court must remand the case to the land use authority with instructions to issue a decision that is consistent with the district court’s ruling. If the court finds that a challenge to a land use application decision is brought in bad faith, the court may award attorney fees. 

(6) Boundary Line Agreements

The bill clarifies that a lot line adjustment and a parcel boundary adjustment exclude adjustments that create an additional parcel or constitute a subdivision. Boundary line agreements are required to also include the parcel or lot each grantor owns before the boundary line is changed, a statement citing the file number of a record of a survey map the parties prepare and file, the date of the agreement, and an amended plat. Boundary line agreements are presumed to have no detrimental effect on easements recorded before the agreement is entered into. The code outlining boundary line agreements that operate as quitclaim deeds is simplified to align with boundary line agreements under the real estate code. 

(7) Referendum

The fourth substitute of HB 315 adds a coordinating clause with HB 119, Initiatives, Referenda, and Other Political Activities and the term “affected owner” will be added to the LUDMA definitions chapter. An “affected owner” is a property owner of a single project that is the subject of a referendum.

The fourth substitute allows an affected owner to rescind a land use approval by delivering written notice to the county clerk, city recorder, or town clerk with jurisdiction within seven days of the date the petition for referendum is determined to be sufficient.