This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
A proposal limiting the public's ability to challenge city land-use decisions passed through this year's legislative session with hardly a ripple.
But things might not be quiet for long.
Some fear the two-page SB53 - crafted to satisfy developers, Realtors and the Utah League of Cities and Towns - will tie the hands of residents who oppose controversial developments.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City, said SB53 was intended to clarify existing law.
"You can petition against the ordinance but not against the process - that's what this bill says," Goodfellow said during Senate floor action last month.
But a Salt Lake City land-use attorney says the bill is more than just a clarification - and the public has lost its voice in the process.
"It introduces land-use language that was not included anywhere before," said Jeff Owens, a land-use attorney with the Salt Lake City-based firm of Strong and Hanni.
"With SB53, voters cannot initiate any referendum to change a land-use ordinance," Owens said. "So zoning laws cannot be taken to the public at this point and time."
"It is, potentially, a big deal," he said.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed SB53 on Thursday.
Robert Rees, the legislative research attorney who helped draft SB53, confirmed that a portion of SB53 is fresh.
"It is brand-new language in the code," Rees said. "The idea behind it was to codify case law that suggests that land-use initiatives are already somewhat restricted."
Goodfellow points to a recent court ruling as an example of why SB53 is needed.
That ruling, handed down in late February, denied a referendum and public vote on a rezone regarding Mapleton foothill property owned by first-time developer Wendell Gibby - determining that the City Council's action was administrative, not legislative.
"What my bill says is what the court ruled in the Mapleton case," Goodfellow said.
The wording of SB53 has Mapleton resident Jim Lundberg scratching his head.
"I'm certain there will be litigation over the meaning of that language," he said.
Lundberg recently led the fight against Gibby's proposal to build 47 homes on 120 acres of Mapleton's bench land.
Under the city's master plan, the land, for many years, had been zoned as "critical environment." But a September 2007 City Council decision - made under pressure from state lawmakers - rezoned Gibby's land to nearly double the density allowed on the hillside.
Lundberg's group, Friends of Maple Mountain, had gathered more than 1,100 signatures in hopes of putting that rezone to a vote of the people.
Lundberg compares Mapleton's dispute to the hotly contested big-box battle on Sandy gravel-pit land - where a 2005 state Supreme Court decision allowed the issue to get on the ballot that November.
SB53 would have blocked that vote, Owens said.
As for Gibby - a radiologist by profession - years of battling Mapleton city officials in and out of court over use of his land led him to seek a higher fix from state lawmakers.
"The people of Mapleton covet my property," Gibby said. "Everybody wants to use someone else's space as open space. But that doesn't make it right."
While Gibby says he had nothing to do with SB53 - former lawmaker Steve Barth claims to have initiated the bill - Gibby admits to spawning other land-use bills over the past two years.
"If a law is unfair, you have a right in a democratic system to try to get it changed," Gibby said.
Gibby's legislative leverage forced Mapleton City Council's hand, said Mapleton City Administrator Bob Bradshaw, even after an 8-1 Planning Commission vote against the rezone.
"In 2006, Gibby approached Rep. Mike Morley, R-Spanish Fork, who sponsored legislation to dilute the power of municipalities to designate land as environmentally critical and to limit development in such zones," Bradshaw said.
"With that coming through, the city felt constrained to make a concession to the landowner."
The end result?
"We wrote a special provision designed for one purpose - to facilitate increased density on Gibby's landholding."
* Prohibits voters from initiating or changing a city, town or county land-use ordinance.
* Prohibits voters from using the referendum and initiative process to challenge the implementation of a local land-use ordinance.