Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State property-rights ombudsman briefs Hooper planning commission on land-use roles, rules and timelines
Summary
Rob Terry of the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman gave a training to the Hooper City Planning Commission covering Utah land-use basics, the difference between legislative and administrative decisions, the administrative land-use authority created by SB 174, review timelines and best practices for evidence, exactions and variances.
Rob Terry, statewide land-use training director at the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman, gave a training to the Hooper City Planning Commission focused on core land-use law and recent state changes that affect local review of development proposals.
Terry told commissioners the Land Use Development and Management Act (commonly called LUDMA) is the statutory foundation for local planning and zoning, and urged officials to align land-use ordinances and zoning with the city’s general plan. He said a central aim of state law is to balance private-property rights with community welfare while enabling local agencies to act within state and federal law.
The presentation emphasized the legal distinction between legislative actions — adoption or amendment of general plans, zoning and ordinances — and administrative actions, which apply existing rules to a particular application (for example, conditional use permits, site plans and certain subdivisions). Terry said administrative decisions should be based on the written standards already adopted by the local legislative body, and not on public opinion.
Terry reviewed the administrative land-use authority changes created by SB 174, including timelines and procedural limits: a pre-application meeting (if requested) must be scheduled within 15 business days; initial review of a complete preliminary plat must be completed within 15 days (30 days for municipalities with population over 5,000); final plat review must be completed within 20 days; and municipalities are limited to a maximum of four review cycles. He warned that a review cycle remains open until the applicant addresses all staff comments in writing.
On exactions and infrastructure, Terry explained the “rough proportionality” principle: any exaction (dedication, construction of public improvements, or monetary payments such as impact fees) must have an essential link to a legitimate government interest and be roughly proportionate in nature and extent to the project’s impacts. He gave the example that a developer cannot be required, as a condition of approval, to upsize a water main beyond what their development’s impacts require, absent reimbursement or other agreement.
Terry also reviewed variance standards, noting they should be rare and only granted when literal enforcement causes an unreasonable hardship not necessary to carry out the ordinance’s purpose; the property has special circumstances not common to the zone; and the variance is essential to enjoyment of a substantial property right. He urged commissioners to document substantial evidence for both approvals and denials, since appeals focus on the record.
The presentation included practical suggestions for handling conditional-use permits: if a city receives the same CUP types repeatedly, the city should consider codifying objective mitigation standards (for lighting, noise, hours, buffers) so those applications can be handled administratively rather than through repeated public hearings.
Terry pointed commissioners to state resources, including the Land Use Academy of Utah (luau.utah.gov) and the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman. He said there is no cost to consult the office; the only fee is a $150 charge for an advisory opinion. He agreed to provide the presentation slides to staff following the meeting.
