HB0422 amends Utah’s municipal ordinance authority to limit how cities and towns may regulate “open houses.” The bill defines an open house as an event held by a homeowner, including events involving a real estate agent, architect, builder, or developer, to showcase a home and its outdoor landscaping. It then provides that a municipality may not regulate an open house differently than a residential use, and any ordinance that does so is void.
The bill is a targeted preemption measure that narrows local government discretion in this specific area of land-use and event regulation. It also makes technical and conforming changes to the existing municipal powers statute, Utah Code Section 10-3-702, and includes a special effective date. No appropriations are made in the bill.
Impact
HB0422 changes state law by expressly limiting municipal authority under Utah Code Section 10-3-702. Local governments may still regulate activities generally, but they cannot single out open houses for different treatment than ordinary residential use. Any existing or future municipal ordinance that imposes special restrictions on open houses is rendered void, which directly affects city and town zoning, permitting, and enforcement practices as they relate to real estate marketing events and homeowners hosting open houses.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the Legislature with strong vote margins. It passed House committee unanimously, passed the House 72-0, passed Senate committee unanimously, and passed the Senate 27-0, with only two no votes on Senate second reading. The final House concurrence was also unanimous, suggesting general agreement with the bill’s limited scope and its protection of open house activity from special municipal regulation.
Contention
There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the bill’s core policy choice is a preemption of local control. Any opposition would likely come from municipalities or local officials who prefer flexibility to regulate open houses differently based on traffic, parking, neighborhood impacts, or public safety concerns. Support appears to have come from lawmakers favoring uniform statewide treatment for residential open houses and the real estate industry or homeowners who benefit from reduced local restrictions.