Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb174 Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midway amends code to comply with SB 174, shifting many preliminary subdivision decisions to staff
Summary
Council adopted Ordinance 2024-17 to align Midway’s municipal code with Utah Senate Bill 174, moving preliminary and final review authority for many single-family and two-family subdivision applications from the council to city staff and establishing technical engineering appeal procedures.
The Midway City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2024-17 to amend the municipal code to comply with Utah Senate Bill 174, adjusting who has final land-use authority for certain subdivision reviews.
Staff described the principal changes: for single-family, two-family and townhome subdivision applications, planners, the city engineer and the building official will serve as the designated land-use authority for preliminary and final reviews; the Planning Commission will remain a recommending body that conducts public meetings and hearings. For appeals involving engineering standards and public improvements, the ordinance adopts the state-mandated technical appeal process: a three-engineer panel (one engineer designated by the city, one by the applicant and a third agreed upon by both). Staff recommended revising the city’s fee schedule to reflect the higher costs of technical appeals.
Jamie Wheeler, an online commenter, asked whether the change transfers authority to unelected decision-makers. Staff answered that the change is required by state law: “They changed and passed. It’s not required by the state?” followed by council confirmation that state law supersedes local rules. Council added a condition that the ordinance not take effect until Dec. 31, 2024, and directed staff to update checklists and report back on Planning Commission appointment processes.
Council debate focused on implementation: clarifying which decisions remain legislative (which still must go to Planning Commission and council), the need for a clear submittal checklist so applicants provide complete files, and whether the appeal fee should be increased from the current $100 to cover the cost of outside technical reviews. Paul, a planning professional who has observed other jurisdictions, told the council that well-defined checklists and standards reduce appeals and produce smoother staff-led review.
Next steps: the ordinance will be codified and staff will propose checklist edits and fee-schedule adjustments; the council also asked that Planning Commission appointment procedures and training be reviewed during strategic planning.
(Ordinance reference: Ordinance 2024-17; authority: Utah Senate Bill 174.)
