Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes highway-signage bill after debate over a disputed Traverse Mountain sign
Summary
Second substitute SB161 clarifies when bisected property counts as contiguous for on-premise signage and increases UDOT enforcement options; the bill passed 49-23 after testimony that the change would address a specific Traverse Mountain mall sign dispute.
The Utah House passed second substitute SB161 on March 9, a narrowly tailored change to highway-signage law that clarifies when land bisected by roads or transit easements can be treated as contiguous for purposes of on-premise signage.
Representative Schultz, the House sponsor, said the bill responds to a dispute involving a Traverse Mountain outlet mall sign that was permitted by a city but later challenged by UDOT because roads and transit lines bisected the property. Schultz described the bill as narrowly tailored to allow a property developed under a unified plan to be treated as contiguous even when bisected by rights of way.
Opponents raised procedural and fairness concerns. Representative 41 (floor commentator) said the developer had previously been cited for excessive brightness and that the owner should not be granted retroactive relief after alleged violations. Other legislators asked whether the bill grants a narrow exemption for one developer and whether it would be used widely in future cases.
Supporters emphasized the bill’s limited scope and said it resolves a specific ambiguity in state statute that led to inconsistent local and UDOT decisions. After floor debate and questions about brightness and due diligence, second substitute SB161 passed 49-23 and will be returned to the Senate for signature of the president.
