{"id":2868,"date":"2013-04-08T11:58:36","date_gmt":"2013-04-08T15:58:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=2868"},"modified":"2013-04-08T12:02:21","modified_gmt":"2013-04-08T16:02:21","slug":"sb-104-that-changed-comprehensive-plan-rules-good-or-bad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/04\/sb-104-that-changed-comprehensive-plan-rules-good-or-bad.html","title":{"rendered":"SB 104 that changed comprehensive plan rules: good or bad?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\nThe Georgia legislature overwhelmingly passed a rather brief\r\n\r\nbill<\/a> that changes\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nthe requirements for Comprehensive Plans by local governments.\r\n\r\nACCG<\/a>\r\nand\r\n\r\nGMA<\/a> both supported it.\r\nIt seems to be related to recent\r\n\r\nDepartment of Community Affairs (DCA)<\/a>\r\nrulemaking that was mostly positive.\r\nDoes that make it a good law?\r\nOpinions seem to differ.\r\nHere’s what I’ve found.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

<\/a>The Bill: SB 104<\/H3>\r\n

\r\nHere’s the bill and its synopsis,\r\n\r\n2013-2014 Regular Session – SB 104:\r\nCommunity Affairs, Dept of; comprehensive plans of local government; revise the minimum elements<\/a>,\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\nA BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 8 of Title 50 of the\r\nOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the Department of\r\nCommunity Affairs, so as to revise the minimum elements addressed\r\nand included in comprehensive plans of local governments; to remove\r\nthe requirement for certain findings with regard to projects of\r\nregional importance or impact; to remove certain limitations on\r\nactions by counties or municipalities with regard to local plans; to\r\nprovide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for\r\nother purposes.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nIt removes this language from O.C.G.A. 50-8-7.1(b)(1) regarding\r\nminimum standards and procedures for DCA to set minimum\r\nelements for local governments:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThese elements shall include, but shall not be limited to, housing, human\r\nservices, natural resources, the environment, vital areas, historic\r\nand cultural resources, infrastructure, land use other than zoning,\r\nrecreation, transportation, and economic development;<\/strike>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nIt adds this to O.C.G.A. 50-8-7.1(d)(3) regarding “rules and procedures\r\nwhich require that local governments submit for review any proposed action\r\nwhich would, based upon guidelines which the department may establish,\r\naffect regionally important resources or further any development of\r\nregional impact.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nA report shall be prepared and submitted to the regional commission\r\ncouncil, including potential impacts of the proposed development\r\nof regional impact. The report shall be made available to the local\r\ngovernments in the region and on the website of the regional commission.<\/u>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThat seems like a good idea. However, the bill removes from the\r\nsame section this sentence:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe review shall result in a public finding by the regional commission or the department, as the case may be, that the action will be in the best interest of the region and state or that it will not be in the best interest of the region and state;<\/strike>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nAnd that’s it: that’s all the bill does.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

<\/a>Georgia Municipal Association (GMA)<\/H3>\r\n

\r\nGMA supported SB 104, and\r\n\r\nthe writeup by Marcia Rubensohn<\/a> says:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThis legislation contains three provisions:\r\n
\r\n(1) Language dealing with the required minimum planning elements are\r\nnow addressed in DCA’s Planning Standards via rule;\r\n
\r\n(2) Removal of the requirement that the regional commission make a\r\nrecommendation of whether a large-scale project should be approved; and\r\n
\r\n(3) Eliminates language that prohibited a local government from taking\r\nany action to adopt the plan or take steps to implement the plan before\r\nthe regional commission or state reviews the plan.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nA clue in (3) indicates\r\nthat DCA’s rulemaking now deals with the at least the first sentence\r\nremoved from O.C.G.A.\r\nWhy are (2) and (3) good ideas?\r\nIf the local government can just go ahead and the regional commission\r\nnever has to even say whether the action is a good idea,\r\nwhat’s the point of sending a report to the regional commission?\r\n<\/p>\r\n

<\/a>Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG)<\/H3>\r\n

\r\nACCG’s \r\nStaff Analysis of the Legislation<\/a> is a bit more forthcoming than GMA’s:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\nThis legislation results from a two-year stakeholder process whereby\r\nACCG, GMA and others partnered on the Department of Community\r\nAffairs’ Planning Rules Task force to revise Georgia’s comprehensive\r\nplanning requirements on local governments. While, to the credit of\r\nDCA, most of the task force’s recommendations have been achieved via\r\nits rulemaking process, three changes in statute were necessary.\r\nThis legislation covers these necessary changes by:\r\n<\/p>\r\n