June 2001

By James Lawlor

Michigan: Toward reform. A package of bills designed to update and reform Michigans planning laws was introduced on April 17, reports Jane Fitzpatrick, chair of the chapters planning law committee. The Coordinated Planning Act (H.B. 4571-75) was referred to the Local Government and Urban Policy Committee, which is headed by the bills sponsor, Rep. Patricia Birkholz (R-Allegan County).

According to Fitzpatrick, the states existing planning enabling acts have seen little change since they were adopted in 1931 and do not address modern-day planning issues. The proposed legislation would combine the current jumble of laws, and would establish a process for coordinating planning among local jurisdictions while preserving principles of home rule and self-determination, she says.

Unlike legislation in some other states, Michigans act would not require a state land-use plan, Fitzpatrick notes. However, the coordinated planning process would require that local governments notify other jurisdictions about their plans and give them an opportunity for review and comment. Plans would have a 20-year scope and would be reviewed every five years.

The legislation also would provide state grants to aid in preparation of local plans, and it would fund regional and county data collection and mapping programs.

The act would further require the adoption and annual updating of a six-year capital improvement program that is based on the local plan and that includes a realistic time frame for providing infrastructure and services. Under the act, the local planning commission would adopt the plan and review the capital improvement plan for consistency.

California: Smart planning proposal. The chapter will sponsor a smart planning legislative package this session, says legislative representative Sande George. The package, which will be based on the recommendations of the chapters state plan task force, is being drafted by Patricia Wiggins (D-Napa), who chairs the assemblys Local Government Committee, and Byron Sher (D-San Mateo/Santa Clara), chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Wiggins leads the legislature's Smart Growth Caucus.

The bills would require the state to adopt a comprehensive plan to replace the current state environmental goals and policy report. Localities would be required to incorporate state goals and policies into their general plans as a condition of infrastructure funding. Local governments also would be required to address social and environmental justice issues in their general plans.

Minnesota: Focus on shooting ranges. A bill that would largely exempt shooting ranges from local land-use controls has passed the house and is under consideration in a senate committee. According to chapter staff aide Cindy Carlsson, H.F. 209 would allow shooting ranges that comply with "generally accepted operation practices" to remain open even if they violate local ordinances. "Generally accepted operation practices" are voluntary guidelines adopted by the state commissioner of natural resources.

In addition, if a local government approves a development on land adjacent to a shooting range, it may be required to pay for range safety improvementsor even to compensate the range operator if the business must close.

Also being tracked by the chapter is S.F. 1618, which would require local zoning and other land-use controls to conform with land-use plans. Another measure being watched is S.F. 1333, which would require the Minnesota attorney general to set guidelines to help state agencies determine whether their actions may constitute a taking. The bill also would require localities to consider the effects of their regulations in determining property tax assessments. Both bills are currently in committee.

Wyoming: Mixed results. This years legislative session held both good and bad news for planners, reports Kenneth Markert, AICP, legislative committee chair for the Wyoming Planning Association. On the plus side, the association was able to persuade legislators to modify a potentially bad revision of the states subdivision laws.

S.F. 157 now defines a subdivision as any division of land rather than a division of three or more lots. It also includes a minor subdivision process. Provisions in the original bill exempting family subdivisions were tightened to reduce the possibility of abuse, and an exception permitting "one time" subdivisions was eliminated, removing the possibility of "chain subdivisions" that would have made an end run around the law.

On the negative side is the passage of H.B. 146, which removes the power of county clerks to refuse to record illegal subdivisions. The bill was introduced at the behest of a Casper title insurance company, Markert says. He notes that most sellers of illegally subdivided lots typically face no penalty.