Toggle Mobile

67th Montana Legislative Session

SB 260: Generally revise related to property interests and transfer of businesses
oppose
LC2519
Steve Fitzpatrick  (R) SD 10
Passed House Committee
4/1/2021

SB 260  is a takings bill that requires government compensation to property owners when they can demonstrate the regulation devalued their property. The original draft did not include land use regulations like subdivision or zoning, so as planners, we were staying out of it. It was amended on 3/25/21 to include Chapters 1 through 4 of Title 76. So anything from growth policies to sanitation.  Please review the amendment, and consider how it will affect the jurisdiction you represent, for example, how will this affect conditions of approval?

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING LAWS RELATING TO PROPERTY INTERESTS; IDENTIFYING THINGS IN WHICH PROPERTY INTERESTS EXIST, INCLUDING GOODWILL AND GOING CONCERN VALUE OF A BUSINESS, LICENSE TO PURSUE A BUSINESS OR LIVELIHOOD, REAL PROPERTY AND FIXTURES, PERSONAL PROPERTY AND APPURTENANCES, WATER RIGHTS, AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY; PROVIDING THAT IDENTIFIED PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERESTS; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 70-1-104, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN APPLICABILITY DATE.“

View Full Bill
SB 397: Generally revise laws related to accessory dwelling units
oppose
LC0872
Greg Hertz (R) SD 6
Tabled
4/1/2021

MAP certainly appreciates the intent of this bill and the importance of ADU’s relative to housing choice, but we are an opponent to SB 397 because we are against state mandated changes to the content of local zoning regulations. Our membership certainly appreciates and understands the relationship between zoning and the cost of housing. In fact, more and more communities in Montana are allowing ADUs in their single-family zoning, including Missoula, Billings, and Helena for example.
MAPs reluctance to support bills that constitute state mandated content changes to local zoning codes comes from our experience with drafting zoning codes. At the local level, when changing zoning codes, such as allowing ADU’s, there is robust local public input, site specific analysis, public notification, and in-depth scrutiny by the local elected officials. We do not have any of these luxuries when changing the content of zoning codes at the state level. There is no analysis by staff, no signs posted 45 days in advance of the hearing, no notification of affected landowners and we have concerns with how this bill will affect land use, specifically COSA, stormwater, parking, carrying capacity for septic’s, distances from local services, and Wildland Urban Interface concerns.
Planners know as well as anyone that through thorough analysis and public input, even the best-intentioned zoning changes do not always end up in the public interest. This bill has the best of intentions, but it is a state mandated content change to local zoning codes, the analysis of the pros and cons just cannot be done at the state level in the way we do it at the local level, we urge a do not pass because we just do not know that the effects of the bill will be.

View Full Bill
HB 450: Generally revise exemptions for certain divisions of land
watch
LC3217
Steve Gunderson (R) HD 1
Hearing
3/15/21 (S) Local Gov. Rm 405 3pm

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING LAWS RELATED TO DIVISIONS OF LAND EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REVIEW; PROVIDING THAT DIVISIONS OF LAND EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REVIEW MUST ADHERE TO APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 76-3-201, MCA.“

*NOTE – We believe amendment 003 will be passed out of committee.

View Full Bill
HB 599: Generally revise opencut laws
watch
LC1883
Steve Gunderson (R) HD 1
Passed Senate Committee
4/1/2021

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING OPENCUT MINING LAWS; PROVIDING LESS STRINGENT APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN OPENCUT OPERATIONS; DEFINING “OCCUPIED DWELLING UNIT”; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 82-4-403, 82-4-431, 82-4-432, 82-4-434, AND 82-4-439, MCA; REPEALING SECTION 82-4-440, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE AND A RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY DATE.“

View Full Bill
HB 527: Draft proposals before initiating Part I Zoning board
oppose
LC2923
Fiona Nave (R) HD 57
Hearing
3/24/21 (S) Local Gov. Rm 405 3pm

MAP stands in opposition to HB 527 as drafted, largely for technical reasons, but supports one of major provisions of the bill – ensuring adequate information is available to the public throughout the process of creating a “Part 1” zoning district.

Our first concern is with the challenge of accurately identifying mineral right owners.  Mineral interests are often fractured and diluted over time due to acquisitions, bankruptcies, and settling of estates, making it verify difficult to identify all the mineral right owners with any level of certainty.  Since the board of county commissioners would be tasked with making determinations about affected real property owners in the zoning process, this would create a new level of liability for counties that we would prefer to avoid.

Our second concern is with the change of the protest period in 76-2-101(5) from 30 days to 90 days.  Since the petition required on the front end of the zoning process must include 60% of affected real property owners in support of creating a proposed district, we believe 30 days for the protest period is adequate, and the change to 90 days is excessive.

Finally, we are concerned that the proposed language in 76-2-101(6)(c) may unreasonably constrain county commissioners from addressing concerns that are raised as part of public comment if such solutions include making adjustments to a proposed development pattern, resolutions, and other materials.  It would be our preference that this section be deleted, but we also offer the following amended language to address that mostly addresses our concern:

The final adopted development pattern, resolutions, and other materials that govern the zoning district as required in 76-2-104 and 76-2-107 must be substantially similar to the draft documents provided to the county commissioners as required in subsection (6)(a), EXCEPT FOR ANY CHANGES ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 

For the reasons outlined above, we ask for a “do not pass” on HB 527.

View Full Bill
HB 498: Clarify jurisdiction of board of oil and gas conservation
watch
LC2499
Steve Gunderson (R) HD 1
Passed Senate Committee
4/1/2021

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT CLARIFYING THE PRIMACY OF THE MINERAL ESTATE; CLARIFYING THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION; AMENDING SECTIONS 76-2-209 AND 82-11-112, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.“

View Full Bill
SB 349: Revise zoning laws
oppose
LC2033
Steve Fitzpatrick (R) SD 10
Tabled
3/1/2021

On February 26th, MAP testified in opposition to SB 349 which would have mandated either 0.5 acre or 1.5 acre minimum lot sizes in all residentially zoned areas zoned under “Part 2” zoning.  Our understanding is that this bill was a response to one or two specific zoning efforts going on around Montana.  MAP stated that this broad brush approach was not the right solution and emphasized that changing existing residential zoning standards could have a significant impact on the predictability that landowners thought they had when they purchased a zoned property, the value of property, property rights, and quality of life issues.  We also pointed out that SB 349 would make it nearly impossible for counties to undergo meaningful zoning efforts that consider site-specific characteristics of property, infrastructure, and services, that other legislative efforts see as having a potential to streamline the subdivision review process.  MAP was pleased with the Senate Local Government Committee’s decision to table the bill.

View Full Bill
HB 528: Revise county planning, zoning, and subdivision laws
oppose
LC2796
Julie Dooling (R) HD 70
Tabled
3/1/2021

MAP Opposes HB 528 because this bill creates a planning framework for Montana that is overly complex, burdensome, full of vague language and rife with redundant requirements. It will create a regulatory environment in Montana that will adversely affect the private sector as much as local governments and it will put small towns and counties at a distinct disadvantage.

The private sector will bear a significant burden of these new requirements. Our state planning statutes establish the process for planning, zoning, and subdivision that both the local governments and the public must follow. Private development is subject to these state statutes.  By placing extraneous restrictions on planning authority, we are making it exponentially more difficult for private citizens to operate in the regulatory environment, which increases the risk faced by local developers and it makes it all the more challenging to provide affordable housing and increased economic opportunity in local Montana communities. This is especially important to consider because most land use actions in this state are initiated by private citizens, not local government.

This bill puts small towns and counties at a distinct disadvantage. Most jurisdictions in Montana rely on consultants to provide planning services or have one planner on staff that may play other roles besides as the planner. The complicated and vague requirements and layers of redundant analysis will make updating plans and regulations out of reach for most small cities, towns, and counties. Only the largest jurisdictions with the funding and capacity will be able to afford operating within this new regulatory framework.  Planning provides many benefits to communities through economic development, grant competitiveness and infrastructure management.  The benefits planning provides and the ability to update rules and regulations to adjust to changing economic and social conditions will no longer be within the capacity of many small jurisdictions, and they are at risk of being left behind. This is especially problematic given the retroactivity clause associated with this bill.

MAP completed a review of state planning laws in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho looking for language that is like this bill. None of our neighboring states have similar provisions. Planners understand that Montana’s planning, zoning, and subdivision laws are outdated and complex, and MAP believes we should be looking for ways to simplify our statutes, not further complicated them. This bill unnecessarily complicates our land use statutes, which will not protect property rights of the public as a whole and it will further inhibit the public’s ability to function in our regulatory framework. Let us work to simplify our planning statutes, not continue to complicate them, we urge you to oppose HB 528.

View Full Bill
HB 529: Revise planning, zoning, and subdivision regulation laws
oppose
LC2797
Julie Dooling (R) HD 70
Tabled
3/1/2021

MAP Opposes HB 529 because the existing variance procedures in both subdivision and zoning regulations are a long-standing and time-tested process that works. This bill will result in a regulatory environment that is difficult for local government to administer and impossible for property owners and the general public to navigate.

A variance from a standard grants a property owner relief from that standard. They are determined based on site-specific conditions. The variance criteria found in most jurisdictions around the country have been in existence since the original enabling act was drafted almost 100 years ago. They have stood the test of time because of their simplicity, fairness, and effectiveness. If you meet the criteria, you are granted a variance. There is little room for subjectivity. This simple and effective process is the safety valve that protects the rights of property owners from standards that would prohibit the reasonable use of their property. It also protects the property rights of neighbors who expect all properties within a district to be held to the same standard and treated in the same manner. It is a familiar and effective process. Most property owners can fill out the application for a variance without hiring architects, engineers, or consulting planners.

This bill throws out the time-tested process for variances that we have used for almost a century. It attempts to make a new process, untested and unprecedented, in which the variance will become the rule. This proposed process abandons the simplicity and plain language that has stood the test of time, and instead embraces complexity and vague language. It will also disrupt the established and permitted development patterns and mixture of uses of neighborhoods and communities without undergoing a fair and open process where the property owners and residents within a district have a say in how development occurs within that district through the creation or update of regulations. The current variance process has one purpose, to protect the rights of those property owners who do not want to follow the rules, while diminishing the property rights of those who do. This new process will create a regulatory environment rife with uncertainty and difficult for the public to navigate. We urge a “do not pass” vote on HB 529.

View Full Bill
SB 294: Referendum to terminate a county zoning district
watch
LC3041
John Esp (R) SD 30
Passed House Committee
4/1/2021

We’ve seen a number of bills this session targeting zoning authority of local government.  This bill is different. Rather than targeting local government authority, it empowers citizens to participate in decision making. This bills does not restrict local government zoning authority. It does not overturn adopted zoning. It does not eliminate existing entitlements. This bill simply expands opportunity for citizens to participate in local decision making. MAP testified in support of this bill but has not taken a position on the bill with the amendments.

View Full Bill
1 2 3

Previous Legislative Sessions