That's why two development insiders believe Sen. Al Mansell filed his controversial land-use bill viewed by municipal leaders as cutting back their powers.

"There's a desire to rein in those bad-boy cities," said Michael Hutchings, an attorney who represents Anderson Development. He points to Summit County, which he is suing over a development proposal, as "exhibit A - a bad-boy [administration] that abuses its zoning power."

"This isn't about big developers getting their way," said Chris Gamvroulas, president of Ivory Development. "It's about cities treating everybody who walks in the door fair and equitable."

On the opposite side of the fight are city and county representatives, grass-roots activists, planners and even environmental groups. They are interpreting Senate Bill 170's 80 pages as a document that would turn their communities over to developers.

"I can't imagine a worse thing to do," said Gary Forbush, who almost became Sandy's mayor while riding a resident referendum over the rezoning of a 107-acre gravel pit into a huge housing and big-box retail center. "It's undermining the whole democratic process."

Opposition to Mansell's bill is apparently growing.

On Wednesday, Save Our Canyons and the Sierra Club added their names to the list of groups planning to fight the Sandy Republican's measure.

"This basically creates no end" to development taking over the slopes of mountains, worries Lisa Smith, Save Our Canyons' president.

Her concern is rooted in the proposed language that would take away a city's control over the "use of land on hillsides."

Mansell, a real-estate broker and former Senate president, declined requests Wednesday for an interview, but asked a reporter why The Tribune is writing about a bill that "no one is talking about."

The bill, which has been assigned to a legislative committee for an as-yet unscheduled hearing, was not a total surprise to city and county officials. But when its language became public earlier this week, officials scrambled to grasp its intent.

In local government, the measure is seen as gutting the power of elected leaders to establish zoning and to plan for the future - as well as to say "no" to a development if they want.

"The way this is written, it gives all the preference to the landowner making the [zoning] application," said Wilf Sommerkorn, the legislative chair of the Utah Chapter of the American Planning Association.

Sommerkorn doubles as Davis County's director of community development.

On the development side, however, the bill is seen as "bringing balance" to a city's zoning power.

"It affords applicants due process," Gamvroulas said. "It requires government to be fair, reasonable and rational."

Gamvroulas' employer, Ivory Development, is a member of the Utah Property Rights Coalition, a group of builders and developers who support the measure. Coalition officials say they didn't author the bill, but Hutchings said he and others "made a few suggestions."

"There's a real-life story behind each and every provision in that bill," said Hutchings, a former 3rd District judge who also employs attorney and House Speaker Greg Curtis.

For instance, Hutchings pointed to a hearing he once attended where a city councilman voted against a project because the elected official liked riding horses on the land covered by the development.

"The city council has got to have just reasons. It can't be a bogus reason," he said.

The bill would resolve that conflict by requiring cities to find that the "approval of the [zoning] application would place the health or safety of the community at risk," before denying a request, Hutchings pointed out.

The cities argue that there are other reasons beside health and safety to deny a zoning application, and their representatives - the Utah League of Cities and Towns - say the league is willing to work with Mansell and the coalition to improve the system.

jsantini@sltrib.com

---

Tribune reporter Matt Canham contributed to this report.