This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
What developers want, developers get.
Utah cities fear that could happen if Sen. Al Mansell's land-use bill becomes law.
The powerful Sandy Republican, who works as a real estate broker, unveiled the measure this week and immediately set off worries among municipal leaders that they could lose control over planning and zoning in their cities.
"It's a complete change of thought on how planning is done," said Nick Duerksen, Sandy's assistant director of community development.
On land use, Senate Bill 170 would limit city councils to:
* Crafting a general plan.
* Creating a zoning map.
* Rezoning lands that cover more than 25 percent of the city.
Other land-use decisions - including proposed rezones of areas smaller than a quarter of the city - would fall under the administrative functions of mayors, city staffers or planning commissions.
Mansell's measure also would prevent resident referendums over land use. If the bill had been law in November, for example, Sandy residents could not have voted on a proposed zoning change for big-box stores at an out-of-use gravel pit. The Utah Supreme Court had ruled that administrative decisions cannot be reversed at the ballot box.
In the end, Sandy voters narrowly sided with their City Council and paved the way for the 107-acre development.
Relegating land-use decisions to the administrative process would mean cities could not stop proposed rezones unless they proved the action would be detrimental to the community's health, safety and welfare.
"It essentially guts our ability to say no to any rezone," said Lincoln Shurtz, a legislative analyst for the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
The proposal from Mansell, who did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment, would cut residents out of the zoning equation in other ways as well.
It would force cities to "conform as reasonably as practicable to the request of the property owner" when dealing with rezoning issues. It would bar cities from any zoning that would "deprive the property owner of all economically viable uses of the property." And it would order judges to side with developers if a city bases any rezone denial on "public clamor."
Grass-roots activists warn that SB170 goes so far that it essentially requires cities to approve development projects, making any input from residents meaningless.
"At the very least, citizens have a right to be involved in their communities," said Janalee Tobias, who is forming The Coalition to Protect Utah to oppose the bill.
For years, Tobias fought to keep a commercial development out of the Jordan River bottomland in South Jordan. Ultimately, she lost that battle and wound up getting sued. She recently settled with Anderson Development, which paid her $50,000 (though her legal tab reached $400,000).
"This bill basically strips cities and towns and citizens of their rights to determine their future," Tobias said.
The measure also takes aim at impact fees and could gut regulations controlling hillside development.
Craig Call, Utah's property rights ombudsman who would not take a position on the bill, sees good and bad in the measure. He says it would give "mom-and-pop" landowners a clearer picture of the sometimes-muddy world of zoning. At the same time, though, it would squelch comments from residents.
With 80 pages to plow through, city leaders still were trying to figure out Tuesday all the changes and impacts that SB170 could bring.
"It's difficult to digest," said Michael Sears, Draper's director of finance.
What SB170 would do
Cities could not:
* Zone for aesthetics.
* Zone to control congestion.
* Deprive the landowner of "all economically viable uses."
* Reject zoning based on "public clamor" or the "whims of members of the legislative body."
Cities would have to:
* "Conform" to the request of landowners.
* Staff review of applications within 45 days.
* Vote on a rezone within 28 days after the staff report.
* Base impact fees on actual expenses of the development.
* Approve cul-de-sacs that are 600 feet deep.