Link to Zipped WordPerfect Minutes 9K bytes

MINUTES OF THE
HOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS STANDING COMMITTEE
ROOM W010, WEST OFFICE BUILDING, STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX
February 5, 2007



MEMBERS PRESENT:    Rep. Glenn Donnelson, Chair
        Rep. John Mathis, Vice Chair
        Rep. DeMar "Bud" Bowman
        Rep. Lorie Fowlke
        Rep. Keith Grover
        Rep. Neil Hansen
        Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson
        Rep. Eric Hutchings
        Rep. Curt Oda
        Rep. Larry Wiley                    
        
MEMBERS ABSENT:    Rep. Douglas Aagard
        
STAFF PRESENT:    Benjamin N. Christensen, Policy Analyst
        Karen Mitchell, Committee Secretary

Note:    A list of visitors and copy of handouts are filed with committee minutes.

Rep. Donnelson called the meeting to order at 8:19 a.m.

MOTION:    Rep. Bowman moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2007 meeting.
        The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Grover, Rep. Hutchings and Rep. Mathis absent for the vote.

H.B. 316    Expansion of Career Service to the Office of Attorney General (Rep. R. Lockhart)

Rep. Lockhart explained the bill.

Spoke for the bill:    Ray Hintze, Utah Attorney Generals Office.

MOTION:    Rep. Bowman moved to pass the bill out favorably. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Grover and Rep. Mathis absent for the vote.

S.B. 97    Constitutional Revision Commission Membership (Sen. P. Knudson)

Sen. Knudson explained the bill.

MOTION:    Rep. Wiley moved to pass the bill out favorably. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Grover and Rep. Mathis absent for the vote.


MOTION:    Rep. Fowlke moved to place the bill on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Grover and Rep. Mathis absent for the vote.

H.B. 287    Election Day Voter Registration (Rep. N. Hansen)

Rep. Hansen explained the bill to the committee.

MOTION:    Rep. Hansen moved to delete in title and body H.B. 287 and replace it with 1st Substitute H.B. 287. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Grover absent for the vote.

Spoke to the bill:    Michael Cragun, Office of the Lieutenant Governor

Spoke against the bill:    Arie VanDeGraaff, Utah Association of Counties
                LeGrand Bitter, Utah Association of Special Districts

MOTION:    Rep. Hendrickson moved to pass the bill out favorably. The motion failed with Rep. Grover, Rep. Hansen, Rep. Hendrickson, Rep. Hutchings, and Rep. Wiley
        voting in favor of the motion. Rep. Bowman, Rep. Donnelson, Rep. Fowlke, Rep. Mathis and Rep. Oda voted against the bill.

H.B. 233    Environmentally Restricted Zoning Districts (Rep. M. Morley)

Rep. Morley explained the bill.

MOTION:    Rep. Mathis moved to amend the bill as follows:


1.    Page 10, Line 284 :    

             284          (3)
  (a)       A municipality may not deny a land use application with respect to land located in


2.    Page 10, Lines 287 through 289 :    

             287          
{   (a)   }        (i)       the municipality failed to comply with the requirements of Subsection (1); or

             288          
{   (b) (i)   }        (ii)(A)       the applicant:

             289          
{   (A)   }        (I)       presents competent evidence        , subject to Subsection (3)(b),       demonstrating that use of the land as proposed in the


3.    Page 10, Lines 292 through 293 :    

             292          
{   (B)   }        (II)       establishes by professional engineering data and the testimony

of competent


             293      experts
  , subject to Subsection (3)(b),       that the potential detrimental effects resulting from the use of the land as proposed in


4.    Page 10, Line 295 :    

             295          
{   (ii)   }        (B)       the land use application proposes lots with an average size that is no smaller than


5.    Page 10, Lines 298 through 299 :    

             298          
{   (iii)   }        (C)       the land use application otherwise complies with all other requirements applicable

             299      to
{   all other   } zoning districts        of similar use and density       in the municipality.

    
  (b)(i) A municipality may reject evidence, professional engineering data, and expert testimony that an applicant presents under Subsection (3)(a)(ii)(A) if the municipality determines that the evidence, data, or testimony is incomplete or inaccurate or does not adequately assess the risks to the public of the municipality's approving the land use application.

    (ii) All disputes between an applicant and a municipality regarding a municipality's rejection of evidence, data, or testimony under Subsection (3)(b)(i) with respect to a land use application shall be resolved in a single binding arbitration proceeding, as provided in Section 10-9a-709.  


6.    Page 23, Line 693 :    

             693          (3)
  (a)       A county may not deny a land use application with respect to land located in an


7.    Page 23, Lines 696 through 698 :    

             696          
{   (a)   }        (i)       the county failed to comply with the requirements of Subsection (1); or

             697          
{   (b) (i)   }        (ii)(A)       the applicant:

             698          
{   (A)   }        (I)       presents competent evidence        , subject to Subsection (3)(b),       demonstrating that use of the land as proposed in the


8.    Page 23, Lines 701 through 702 :    

             701          
{   (B)   }        (II)       establishes by professional engineering data and the testimony of competent


             702
     experts
  , subject to Subsection (3)(b),       that the potential detrimental effects resulting from the use of the land as proposed in


9.    Page 23, Line 704 :    

             704          
{   (ii)   }        (B)       the land use application proposes lots with an average size that is no smaller than


10.    Page 23, Lines 707 through 708 :    

             707          
{   (iii)   }        (C)       the land use application otherwise complies with all other requirements applicable

             708      to
{   all other   } zoning districts        of similar use and density       in the county.

    
  (b)(i) A county may reject evidence, professional engineering data, and expert testimony that an applicant presents under Subsection (3)(a)(ii)(A) if the county determines that the evidence, data, or testimony is incomplete or inaccurate or does not adequately assess the risks to the public of the county's approving the land use application.

    (ii) All disputes between an applicant and a county regarding a county's rejection of evidence, data, or testimony under Subsection (3)(b)(i) with respect to a land use application shall be resolved by a single binding arbitration proceeding, as provided in Section 17-27a-709.  


The motion to amend the bill passed unanimously.

Spoke for the bill:    Wendell Gibby, citizen (handout)
            Rep. Michael Noel
            Rep. Christopher Herrod

Spoke against the bill:    Mike Ostermiller, Utah Property Rights
                Robert Bradshaw, Mapleton City Administrator
                Jeff Stenquist, Draper City Council
                Gary Crane, Layton City

MOTION:    Rep. Oda moved to pass the bill out favorably as amended.

SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:    Rep. Fowlke moved to table the bill. The substitute motion failed with Rep. Oda and Rep. Wiley voting in favor of the motion.

        


The original motion to pass the bill out favorably passed with Rep. Fowlke and Rep. Wiley voting against the motion.

MOTION:    Rep. Bowman moved to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously.

Rep. Donnelson adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.

    





                    __________________________
                    Rep. Glenn Donnelson, Chair