Hello Samantha,
John Janson is correct. The change happened last year in HB406, lines 1137 through 1144: https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0406.html
(i) A municipality may not unreasonably withhold issuance of a certificate of
1138 occupancy where an applicant has met all requirements essential for the public health, public
1139 safety, and general welfare of the occupants, in accordance with this chapter, unless:
1140 (i) the applicant and the municipality have agreed in a written document to the
1141 withholding of a certificate of occupancy; or
1142 (ii) the applicant has not provided a financial assurance for required and uncompleted
1143 [landscaping] public landscaping improvements or infrastructure improvements in accordance
1144 with an applicable ordinance that the legislative body adopts under this chapter.
Unless there is a written document (development agreement or otherwise) the municipality cannot withhold CofO for private landscaping improvements.
Great question, thank you!
Scott A. Hess
North Ogden City
Community and Economic Development Director
(801) 737-9841
northogdencity.com
From: Samantha DeSeelhorst via Utah Chapter APA Listserv <utahapa@PROTECTED>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Utah Chapter APA Listserv <utahapa@PROTECTED>
Subject: [UAPA] Question for Utah Planners
From: SDeSeelhorst@PROTECTED Hi all, As an alternative to requiring single-family lots be landscaped prior to certificate of occupancy, has anyone used landscaping bonds? If so,
sophospsmartbannerend
|
Start a new thread, email: utahapa@cachempo.org
Utah Chapter APA
Email addresses will not be shared or sold.