The Council finds that:

1. Enactment of zoning and other land development regulations within Copperton is necessary to protect the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Copperton;
2. When an owner of private property claims that the enforcement of any Copperton land use regulation constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property, it is Copperton’s best interests to have established procedures for obtaining relevant information for analyzing and resolving such claims.

1. Takings Relief Petition.
   1. Any applicant may file a takings relief petition with the Director alleging that a final decision of the Director, Planning Commission, Land Use Hearing Officer, Mayor or Council on a land use application resulted or will result in an unconstitutional taking of the applicant’s private property.
   2. A takings relief petition shall be filed no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the final decision of the Director, Planning Commission, Land Use Hearing Officer, Mayor, or Council.
2. Information to Be Submitted with Takings Relief Petition.
   1. The takings relief petition shall be submitted on a form prepared by the Director, and shall be accompanied at a minimum by the following information:
      1. The name of the petitioner;
      2. Sufficient facts to show that the petitioner possesses a protectable interest in property under Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of Utah or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
      3. The name and physical street address and mailing address of the current owner of the property; form of ownership (whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, or other); and if owned by a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company, the names and addresses of principal shareholders, partners, or members;
      4. The price paid and other terms of any sale of the property or any portion thereof, including the date of purchase, the name of the seller, and the relationship, if any, between the petitioner (owner or developer) and the party from whom the property was acquired;
      5. The nature of the protectable interest claimed to be affected, such as, but not limited to, fee simple ownership or leasehold interest;
      6. All appraisals of the property prepared for any purpose, include financing, offering for sale, or ad valorem taxation, within the three years prior to the date of the petition;
      7. The assessed value of and ad valorem taxes on the property for the three years prior to the date of the petition;
      8. All information concerning current mortgages or other loans secured by the property, including name of the mortgagee or lender, current interest rate, remaining loan balance, term of the loan, and other significant provisions, including but not limited to, right of purchase to assume the loan;
      9. All listings of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received (if any), during the period of ownership or interest in the property;
      10. All studies commissioned by the petitioner or agents of the petitioner within the previous three years concerning feasibility of development or utilization of the property;
      11. For income producing property, itemized income and expense statements from the property for the previous three years;
      12. Evidence and documentation of improvements, investments, and expenditures for professional and other services related to the property made during the past three years;
      13. Information from a title policy or other source showing all recorded liens or encumbrances affecting the property; and
      14. Information describing all use(s) of the property during the five years prior to the petition.
   2. The Director may request additional information reasonably necessary to arrive at a conclusion concerning whether there has been a taking.
3. Failure to Submit Information. In the event that any of the required information from the petitioner is not reasonably available, the petitioner shall file with the petition a statement of the information that cannot be obtained and the reasons why such information is unavailable.

1. Preliminary Determination of Taking.
   1. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of a petition with all required information, the Council, in consultation with the Director and the municipal attorney, shall make a preliminary determination on the issue of whether a taking may have occurred.
   2. If the Council makes a preliminary determination that a taking may have occurred, the Director and Attorney shall recommend whether a further hearing shall be formal or informal under the rules of procedure adopted by the Council for such hearings. The Council shall then:
      1. Appoint a hearing officer;
      2. Elect to conduct either formal or informal administrative proceedings; and
      3. Proceed with a full review of the petition.
   3. If the Council, upon consultation with the Director and the Attorney, determines that a taking has not occurred, the petition shall be denied and no hearing officer shall be appointed.
2. Appointment and Qualifications of Hearing Officer.
   1. Within thirty (30) days following a preliminary determination by the Council that a taking may have occurred, the Director shall contact the appointed hearing officer to review information by the petitioner. The hearing officer shall hold a public hearing to determine whether a taking has occurred, and make a recommendation to the Council concerning the petition.
   2. The appointed hearing officer shall be licensed to practice law in the state of Utah. Prior to appointment, the hearing officer shall submit a statement of no potential or actual conflict of interest under the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, in connection with the petitioner or petition at issue.
3. Notice of Public Hearing. Within ten days following the appointment of the hearing officer, written notice of a public hearing shall be published and posted in accordance with the Utah Code § 10-9a-201 et seq. The hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of the date of written notice unless a reasonable extension of time is agreed to by both the Director and petitioner.
4. Conduct of the Hearing.
   1. Rules of Procedure. The hearing shall be conducted according to the requirements of the rules of procedure adopted by the Council for such hearings.
   2. Burden of Proof. The petitioner shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the final decision that is the subject of the takings relief petition constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
   3. Municipality Response. Copperton shall have the right to respond to any allegations provided by the petitioner and present evidence at the hearing.
5. Determining the Takings Issue. The hearing officer shall consider, among other items, the following information or evidence:
   1. Any estimates from contractors, appraisers, architects, real estate analysts, qualified developers, or other competent and qualified real estate professionals concerning the feasibility of construction or development on the property as of the date of the petition, and in the reasonably near future;
   2. Any evidence or testimony of the market value of the property both under the uses allowed by the existing regulations and any proposed use; and
   3. Any evidence or testimony concerning the value or benefit to the petitioner of clustered development on other remaining contiguous property owned by the petitioner, and eligibility for such clustering as provided elsewhere in this Title.
6. Findings of the Hearing Officer. On the basis of the evidence and testimony presented, the hearing officer shall make the following specific findings as part of the hearing officer’s report and recommendations to the Council:
   1. Whether the petitioner has provided the required information for a takings relief petition;
   2. Whether the petitioner has a protectable interest in the property that is the subject of the petition;
   3. The market value of the property under the existing zoning regulation;
   4. The market value of the property under the proposed use;
   5. Whether there are other economically viable uses that may be made of the property;
   6. The market value of, or benefit accruing from eligible clustered development on other remaining contiguous property owned by the petitioner;
   7. Whether it was feasible to undertake construction on, or development of, the property as of the date of the application, or in the reasonably near future thereafter; and
   8. Whether the final decision that is the subject of the takings relief petition constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.
7. Report and Recommendations of the Hearing Officer.
   1. The hearing officer shall prepare a report and recommendation which shall be submitted to the Council and mailed to the petitioner within thirty (30) days following the conclusion of the public hearing.
   2. If the hearing officer finds that the final decision that is the subject of the takings relief petition constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, the matter shall be remanded to the Council with recommendations concerning relief that might be appropriate. In making such recommendations, the hearing officer shall consider, among other remedies:
      1. Approval of development on some portion of the property;
      2. A rezoning of the property to a more appropriate classification, approval of an alternative development plan, modification or waiver of normally applicable development standards, or other appropriate land-use regulatory action;
      3. An opportunity to cluster development. Recommendations for clustering within the boundaries of the subject property owned by the petitioner shall require a written finding by the hearing officer that such clustering and the resulting increase in development density will be compatible with existing developments and land use patterns on properties surrounding the subject property. For purposes of such “compatibility” finding, the hearing officer shall compare the petitioner’s proposed development, incorporating the increased transfer density with existing development on surrounding properties, and take into consideration the following factors:
         1. Architectural character;
         2. Building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale;
         3. Building orientation;
         4. Privacy considerations in terms of privacy for prospective residents within the petitioner’s development and in terms of privacy protection for adjoining land uses;
         5. Building materials;
         6. Building color; and
         7. When applicable, operations of the petitioner’s development project, including but not limited to hours of operation; activities that may generate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses such as noise or glare; location of loading/delivery zones; and light intensity and hours of full illumination.
      4. A waiver of permit fees; or
      5. Acquisition of all or a portion of the property at market value.
8. Council Review and Consideration.
   1. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the hearing officer’s report, the Council shall review the report and recommendations and approve or deny the takings relief petition.
      1. The Council may extend the period for final determination upon a finding that due to the size and complexity of the development or proposal and similar factors, additional review time is necessary.
   2. The Council may hold a public hearing and provide notice as set forth in Utah Code § 10-9a-201 et seq. Only new testimony and evidence shall be presented at any such public hearing.
   3. The Council may adopt any legally available incentive or measure reasonably necessary to offset the taking and may condition such incentives upon approval of specific development or site plans.
   4. The decision of the Council shall not become final until it adopts a resolution approving or denying the petition and specifying any relief it may deem appropriate.
9. Time Limits/Transferal of Relief or Incentives. Any relief or incentives adopted by the Council pursuant to this chapter may be transferred and utilized by successive owners of the property or parties in interest, but in no case may the relief incentives be valid after the expiration date of a specific development approval.