By James Lawlor

Utah: Planning dodges a bullet, sort of. In late February, it looked like the legislature would try to cover a budget shortfall in part by zeroing-out funding for planning-related activities. The House Appropriations Committee was prepared to eliminate the $2.5 million appropriation to acquire open space, eliminate funding for the governor's Office of Planning and Budget, and kill off planning aid for local communities.

After a public outcry, the legislature agreed to restore most of the funding, but then, just before adjourning on March 6, passed an amended budget cutting $1.75 million from the land conservation fund. House minority leader Ralph Becker, AICP (D-Salt Lake City), said the house, by its action, "gutted and, maybe, effectively eliminated the only open-space funding by the state." However, as of this writing, it appears that most of the funding for the governor's planning office and for local planning grants survived.

In other action, the legislature handed the state's powerful billboard industry two significant plums. It voted to allow sign companies to raise or relocate billboards made less visible by improvements to Interstate 15, which runs from north to south through Salt Lake City. Billboards also would be allowed within 500 feet of interchanges. About 10 billboards would have their visibility obstructed by lane widening and sound-wall construction. Proponents of the bill said the alternative to the legislation would be expenditure of about $14 million to acquire the billboards. That was money the state could ill-afford to spend, considering the budget crunch, they argued.

House minority leader Becker objected to the way the bill was introduced and enacted. He noted that when the bill was originally introduced in the senate, it changed only two lines of the state's sign code. But, by the time the house was through with it, a substitute bill containing provisions never considered by a committee or the senate had become the vehicle for the sign industry's designs. Notwithstanding that, the senate voted to concur with the house amendments.

Another bill allows owners of billboards to move a sign if it is too close to power lines. The bill's sponsor said that without the law, billboard owners could force power companies to move their lines. An opponent, Rep. Patrice Arent, (D-South Cottonwood) said the bill would force local governments to give billboard owners variances to relocate their signs.

The legislature also intervened in a squabble over construction of a new highway intended to take some of the traffic pressure off I-15. The Legacy Highway in western Davis County is the subject of a lawsuit by a coalition of environmentalists and civic groups against several federal agencies, claiming the agencies violated environmental and transportation laws in approving a 14-mile section of the road. The government won at the trial court level, but the plaintiffs have appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court issued a temporary injunction stopping construction, pending a hearing on the appeal later this month. The state claims the construction shutdown is costing it $100,000 a day.

In an apparent attempt to strong-arm a settlement of the dispute, the legislature passed to bill that would allow persons or entities, including the state itself, to recover damages attributable to litigation delays of a state-approved project if the plaintiffs do not substantially prevail in their lawsuit. The effect of the bill is not limited to highway construction, however, its sponsor said. Sen. Terry Spencer (R-Layton) said the bill also would apply to appeals an environmental group in southern Utah has filed against Bureau of Land Management grazing permits. He called the appeals "frivolous lawsuits." Opponents of the bill say it is unconstitutional. Contact Wilf Sommerkorn, 801-451-3278, wilf@co.davis.ut.us.

Virginia: Lighting bills turned off. About that legislative proposal to authorize local governments to regulate outdoor lighting (February 2002 Statehouse): Forget about it. S.B. 100, that would have authorized all localities to regulate lighting, passed the senate, but a house bill that would apply to only one county ran into stiff opposition in committee. Then the house committee decided to carry over the senate bill to the next legislative session, and the senate's local government committee decided to also carry over the house bill. Opponents of the legislation argued it was unnecessary because local governments already have authority to regulate lighting under the site plan approval process. Some chapter members also were concerned that passing specific authorization legislation might undermine local governments' authority to regulate lighting under their general zoning powers.

The chapter is watching with some concern a "sleeper" bill, H.B. 1299, that would authorize replacement of a legal nonconforming manufactured housing unit with a comparable unit that meets HUD manufactured housing standards. The bill has passed the house and is under consideration in the senate. It was apparently introduced to address the policy of one county requiring manufactured home parks to maintain or increase separation between buildings and provide adequate parking when a nonconforming unit is replaced. One consequence of this policy would be that over time, the total number of units in a manufactured home park would decline.

Chapter members are concerned that incorporating one exemption in the nonconforming use statute could be the thin end of the wedge for other exemptions. Further, the bill would prevent local governments from upgrading and improving public safety in manufactured home parks, and could make it impossible for localities to eliminate nonconforming mobile home units on formerly agricultural land that has been rezoned residential. Contact David Kovacs, AICP, 804-786-1518, vapalegs@aol.com.

Florida: Redefining "aggrievement." A bill has been filed in the state senate declaring, "The legislature intends to revise section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, governing the challenge of a development order by an aggrieved or adversely affected party on the basis of inconsistency with a local government comprehensive plan."

SB 550 is no more than a placeholder bill at the moment, with no substantive language. Its evident intent, however, is to legislatively overturn the ruling last September by the Florida Court of Appeal that neighbors of a multifamily apartment project had legal standing to attack the project's plan approval on the ground it was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive land-use plan (Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, No. 4D99-2641, Sept. 26, 2001). The court's ruling would require the developer to tear down five completed buildings, assuming the decision is not overturned on appeal. The case was discussed in the January issue of Planning magazine.