This article is sponsored by Greg Cropper.
As many working in the Utah land use universe are well aware, the Utah Legislature has for quite some time been on a focused mission to modify, or even completely overhaul, certain long-established policies and procedures regarding the processing and approval (or disapproval) of land use applications. One very consequential example of this was the creation in 2007 of the Military Installation Development Authority (known as “MIDA”). MIDA was established as a statewide development authority, supplanting local land use authority and empowered with broad discretion and authority over projects located anywhere within the state, that claim a military nexus (discounted hotel room rates for service members, for example).
In a more granular context, 2023 SB 174 and 2024 SB 185 imposed very specific timing requirements on land use authorities pertaining to the review of, and action on, many subdivision applications. The bills established initial review within 15 days for larger jurisdictions and 30 days for smaller jurisdictions with maximum review time of 120 business days. These laws also dictate that many subdivision applications no longer fall under the purview of a local jurisdiction’s legislative body. They are now deemed to be administrative decisions processed by the jurisdiction’s staff and planning commission with very limited public involvement. Only one public hearing is permitted. The theory is that creating the actual zones and designating specific properties within those zones are legislative acts, following which everything becomes administrative implementation of the legislative acts.
In 2025, SB 262 authorized local legislative bodies to settle land use litigation by entering into consent agreements with litigating applicants on whatever terms and conditions a legislative body and an applicant deem desirable without any public or planning commission process involvement or input at all. Such consent agreements are deemed to be legislative acts and subject to great deference by the courts in any challenges that may arise.
We are now eyeing proposed 2026 HB 37 and HB 184, which would combine to require that local legislative bodies implement specific “moderate income housing strategies.” If passed and signed into law, these bills would significantly accelerate affordable/moderate housing developments by requiring that land use authorities approve higher-density developments with smaller lot sizes (as small as 5,400 square feet) and allow accessory dwelling units. Importantly, if a proposal meets the criteria of an affordable/moderate housing development, that development may be approved as a jurisdiction’s legislative act without having to amend the applicable zoning ordinance. In addition, HB 184 clarifies that a planning commission’s determination that a development request does not meet statutory requirements for a preferred affordable/moderate housing project is an administrative decision. An administrative decision is subject to a far lesser degree of deference by the courts in any challenges. A legislative body’s decision to deny a request that conforms with such preferred use requirements remains a legislative act and is afforded greater deference by the courts. Very specific, and some argue very short, timelines are imposed on local jurisdictions. Failing to meet such timelines can result in a request being deemed approved.
There has certainly been a fair amount of healthy debate over whether the Utah legislature is wise to involve itself in land use planning and implementation at such local levels and whether such involvement leads to many unintended consequences, for example, cases of municipal incorporation of properties to avoid land use restrictions perceived to be too stringent. And while many have questioned whether state-level land use actions at an on-the-ground level is appropriate in the context of American democracy, one thing is certain and beyond debate: 2026 HB 37 and HB 184, just like many land use laws preceding them, certainly make the lives of developers significantly easier. Assuming that those House Bills pass, only time will tell if they produce the intended results and whether any undesirable unintended consequences will come as part of the package.
Greg Cropper practices in Parsons’ Park City office and focuses his practice on real estate acquisition, disposition, land use entitlements and development, and commercial leasing as well as owners’ association matters. To discuss this or related matters with Greg, send an email to gcropper@parsonsbehle.com or call 435.962.9930.