#EM2021 – Candidate Question – Vested Density/Building Moratorium

One of the things I have done as I have served on Council is to take every opportunity to help influence and communicate with our developers. It takes a lot of my personal time, but it is worth it. As developers have reached out to me to get feedback, I have met with them, repeatedly to help retool a plan until it gets closer to both what the landowner wants to do with their property and what our residents want and need. If the project was a multi-family project, I have helped to push for additional parking and placement of amenities that help to make that neighborhood the strongest and as safe as possible. If it is a single family development, I work to help the developer see why it is beneficial to include some larger lots. In the end, I believe in the property rights of each land owner, but I also believe in the market and when I can show evidence of the need for these efforts to improve a neighborhood, it helps the residents–both present and future, and it helps the developer to have a better development.

This candidate after several email attempts did not participate in this questionnaire.

Incentivize developers to utilize the property in other ways. To the developers that own the land the fact that they are vested is money to them. We need to bring them to the table and talk about other ways we can benefit the community and allow them to recover or utilize that vested property.

I already have a record of working with vested developments and the developers to reduce the number of units, create a much more attractive and useable community that enhances Eagle Mountain

I will admit this is not an area of strength for me, and don’t have a lot to offer on this subject currently. Without a lot of background knowledge and experience to work from, I would say the best way to deal with these vested unbuilt properties is to carefully consider the proposals that are brought to Council through the lens of the needs and wants of, and the impact on, our residents, then guide the growth with those things in mind.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is much we can do without incurring significant lawsuits, which if EM loses, could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Moving forward, EM needs to include sunset clauses in all master development agreements to provide the city with more flexibility in changing the zoning of the city.

Right now, the staff is gathering data on the vested properties. We want to know what percentage of each housing type we currently have, and what is vested, meaning already approved with housing types and densities. We can use this information to land on a balance that we feel meets the needs of our community without changing the things that make us so great, like open space and trails.

This is a tough question. First, we must identify what housing types these vested rights entitle. This has not been done yet in a satisfactory way in my opinion. It is one of the things I’ve asked for as a planning commissioner and I believe it is a key piece of information that needs to be identified and provided to policy makers. Once it becomes clear what types and where these types of development are already entitled, we go to work. I believe in some instances where these rights exist it may be necessary to shift some of the vested units into some more dense areas that make sense perhaps closer to major roadways, industry or commerce. This could allow us to open up or decrease density in more rural areas such as the bench areas of the city. I would be in favor of having those discussions with vested property owners. These vested rights should be a key element in the next review of the general plan. I believe armed with this information and an updated accurate zoning map (which I have also pressed to be created) that we can more precisely plan and citizens can more accurately predict what types of development will occur and where they will occur in the city. Our general plan map needs to be more accurate and better reflect the reality of these vested rights and upon which parcels they are entitled.

Building moratorium is a tool allowed by Utah State Law that allows a city to create a temporary land use regulation to have time to create a solution to an extreme problem or emergency. Recently Oakley, Utah enacted a moratorium on all building permit approvals and new landscaping requiring connection to City Culinary water. In Oakley’s case they are unable to provide any additional city culinary water hook ups, so they have halted all building permits. Their mayor said this is about averting a crisis during an extreme drought and if there was a big fire, there is a significant likelihood they would not have enough water to both put out the fire and continue to provide water to residents for home use. Another example is Bluff Town passed a moratorium on all building permits for 6 months while they work on their zoning ordinances. In Eagle Mountain, we would need to show three things: 1. justification and that we cannot continue to serve the public “health, safety, and welfare”, 2. the area that the moratorium affects, 3. the length of time for the moratorium. To the question of “in order, legal, or necessary”, this tool cannot just be used to slow growth; we would have to be creating a solution during the time period. Possible instances where I believe we would need to enact a moratorium include the following: if we needed to install an additional well or make repairs to our water system that could not otherwise be made; if we needed to put in a new road or repair a road that would be safety risk without; or if we needed to revamp code and it couldn’t be revamped without halting building. The reality is, this is a tough issue because a moratorium is merely a “band-aid” while a city works to get “better care.” We still have to address the issue; a moratorium alone doesn’t solve the issue.

This candidate after several email attempts did not participate in this questionnaire.

Currently, a moratorium would not be legal. If the city could not provide services due to a catastrophic event or equipment failure, we could call for a temporary moratorium. Projects have been approved and have a legal right to build what has been approved. If we call for a moratorium without a legal reason, we will be sued.

Building moratoriums are only appropriate when it’s required to change a law. It can’t be used just to stop developers from building. If we follow our own code, make some adjustments to the general plan layout and then stick to it, there is no need for a moratorium

One thing that I am extremely grateful to have in our city is a City Hall full of administrators who are intelligent, well-informed, and highly invested in the health and well-being of our communities, in every aspect. Their perspectives and combined knowledge are both respectable and valuable. If they are the ones recommending a building moratorium, I think we should listen and give it serious consideration. However, I think we will always have people who want the construction to halt, for a variety of personal reasons; and because of the fairly extreme growth trajectory, there will likely be some tension for a long time between land owners/developers and residents. Personally, I had a very limited view of the kind of city Eagle Mountain even is, until I began researching our history, understanding the original framework and vision for the city; getting involved in the community through developing public arts programming; and helping to establish the EM Chamber of Commerce to better support our local business community. These things had me attending city council meetings, asking questions to understand how community-building works, and having wonderful, insightful conversations with city administrators and elected officials all along the way. I was able to see, firsthand, the amazing, tireless, and often thankless work that is going on behind the scenes — all the constantly moving parts and shifting pieces — that are the growing pains of a city like ours. Something like a building moratorium seems to me like an unnecessary, radical measure that could have unintended negative consequences, as so many aspects of the city’s processes are intricately tied together.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is much we can do without incurring significant lawsuits, which if EM loses, could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Moving forward, EM needs to include sunset clauses in all master development agreements to provide the city with more flexibility in changing the zoning of the city.

At this point in time I do not believe it is in order. I do believe we need to be more intentional about the rights that we grant to future development and the time frame in which that development must occur before those rights expire. It is one of the reasons I worked with other members of the Planning Commission to write and recommend to the City Council adoption of the Master Development Code Amendment that accomplishes this goal. The long term vested rights that have created so many of the current development concerns and conflicts are no longer possible with the six year termination of those rights required by this new MDA code. In short, now when a developer comes to the city to ask for vesting or certain land development rights, the city says sure we will consider granting those rights but you will need to exercise them and perform as you’ve requested in a six year time frame or loose the entitlement. This all but eliminates the ability of developers to become land brokers that secure entitlements and then sit on them and sell them many years or decades later to be built when the environment and direction of the city may be significantly different than when the rights were granted.

I do not believe that we should impose a building moratorium. There is a need for housing. There are people who invest time, money, and emotions into looking for a home. There are business owners who have invested money into developing land. We need to work on parallel paths that make sure we have the infrastructure in place for the growth.