Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel passes measure to allow concurrent county and state land‑use reviews despite spot‑zoning concerns
Summary
The committee passed HR59/HCR65, which requests the Land Use Commission coordinate concurrent reviews of plan, district‑boundary and zoning amendments; LUC and OPSD warned the change could enable spot zoning if individual property owners can trigger concurrent processes.
The House Committee on Water & Land on March 25 passed HR59/HCR65, a resolution asking the state Land Use Commission (LUC) to coordinate concurrent reviews with county planning commissions and county councils for general plan amendments, district boundary amendments and zoning amendments when reclassifying land.
Aaron Setogawa of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD) testified that OPSD stands on its written testimony but raised concerns in comments: a concurrent procedure could allow an individual property owner to request simultaneous county and state reclassification and zoning changes, potentially producing an isolated urban parcel surrounded by agricultural land. OPSD said that county plan amendments generally include broader hearing processes, consultation with adjacent landowners, and infrastructure review; OPSD urged limits on owner-initiated concurrent filings and preferred county planning department–initiated actions.
The Land Use Commission echoed that spot zoning is a bad practice and said it would work with counties to help avoid that outcome. Committee members asked LUC to define “spot zoning” for the record; a LUC representative explained it occurs when an individual parcel is rezoned urban while surrounding parcels remain agricultural or rural, creating an island of incompatible use.
The committee voted to pass HR59/HCR65 unamended; the chair noted reservations from one member and a recorded no vote from another but moved the measure forward. The committee said it expected county and state officials to work together to reduce the risk of isolated reclassifications and suggested follow-up work if unintended spot-zoning outcomes occur.
Ending: HR59/HCR65 passed the committee with a directive for state and county agencies to coordinate and guard against spot zoning in any concurrent review process.
