Would A “Standing” Rewrite Freeze Your Comp Plan?

On February 2, 2016, MACo Policy Counsel Les Knapp testified to the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee in opposition to SB 166, Land Use Actions – Legislative Bodies – Judicial Review.

From the MACo testimony,

MACo believes the Bell case is a restatement and clarification of existing precedent regarding standing and that SB 166 would improperly expand standing for both comprehensive rezoning and comprehensive planning actions. The result would upend local comprehensive planning efforts, disrupt and potentially significantly delay the comprehensive rezoning process, and imperil Smart Growth-friendly redevelopment and revitalization projects. Accordingly, MACo would urge the Committee to give SB 166 an UNFAVORABLE report.

An identical cross-filed bill, HB 243, will be heard on February 9 in the House.

For more on 2016 MACo legislation, visit the Legislative Database.

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: