Toggle Mobile

69th Montana Legislative Session

HB 614: Allow for the termination of certain county zoning districts
support
LC0916
Rep. Overstreet
03/24/25 3 pm, Rm 405
3/24/25

County Planners, do not panic, this is a good bill.  MAP participated in it’s drafting. This bill provides a clear path in statute for county’s to convert Part I zoning to Part II zoning. A clear path to do so is currently lacking. It also codifies how a county converts Part II zoning into the MLUPA zoning if they opt in.

The idea of terminating a zoning district may be concerning. To address such concerns, HB 614 requires a county commission to already have adopted new zoning regulations or opted-in to the Montana Land Use Planning Act before terminating the old zoning district. Actions associated with adopting new zoning regulations or opting-in to the Montana Land Use Planning Act both involve considerable public process and opportunity to work through any such concerns.

In conclusion, MAP believes that HB 614 provides a meaningful tool that counties can choose to use as they work through the challenges associated with zoning reform. If a county elects to use the tool, HB 614 provides clear authority and process, including provisions for public notice and public hearings.

View Full Bill
SB 175: Allowing for streamlined public hearing notice process when revising zoning
support
LC0014
Sen. Mandeville
(H) Local Gov 3/25/25 3pm Rm 472
3/24/25

This bill will reduce the timeframe for adopting amendments to Part II zoning districts from 45 days of notice to 15 days and eliminates the requirements for a Resolution of Intent. During the last session, we calculated that the notice requirements add approximately 50 to 60 days to the process. This extended timeline does not enhance the public’s ability to participate in the process. The change would apply only to amendments to regulations; new zoning districts would still require the traditional process.

View Full Bill
SB 174: Providing that recreational vehicles and mobile homes are reviewed as B.L.R.
support
LC0015
Sen. Mandeville
(H) Local Gov 3/27/25 3pm Rm 472
2/24/25

The Montana Association of Planners wishes to express our support for the general intent of SB
174. We believe that moving review of rental or lease spaces for recreational vehicles and
mobile homes from the Subdivision and Platting Act (Title 76, Chapter 3) to Building for Lease
or Rent (Title 76, Chapter 8) will provide a more cost-effective review process for developers of
such projects while providing adequate oversight by local communities to protect public health
and safety.

View Full Bill
SB 214: Revise zoning laws to clarify decisions regarding prior nonconforming use of property
watch
LC1016
(S) Hertz
(H) Local Gov 3/27/25 3pm Rm 472
3/25/25

UPDATE: This bill was an amended to simplify the language on interpretation of zoning provisions to favor the non-conforming use of property if there is any ambiguity regarding whether the use is permitted.  The amendments also eliminated references to historic preservation which was a significant concern. Based on the amendments that passed the Senate, we are changing our position to “watch” and will no longer be opposing the bill.

View Full Bill
SB 168: Revise laws related to lakeshore protection
oppose
LC1009
(S) Hertz
(H) Local Gov 03/27/2025 3pm Rm 472
3/24/25

The Montana Association of Planners opposes SB 168. Our primary concern is the 3-year statute of limitations. This bill purports to address historical structures located within the lakeshore protection area. Many of us are familiar with historic docks, boathouses, and other elements of an improved shoreline. However, this bill would sanction new violations if not caught within the 2-year statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions do not have the resources to actively police shoreline violations, placing more of a burden on citizen complainants. This skews the rules in favor of shoreline violators, and unfairly against those who follow the rules. If violations are discovered, the “documented harm” standard could be an impossibly high bar for obvious problems: examples might include retaining walls, oversized docks, and boat houses that were never reviewed by a professional. Neighboring property owners would just have to “live with it” and the environmental impacts may not be known for years. There are better ways to address historical structures in the lakeshore protection zone. We recommend “do not pass” on SB 168.

View Full Bill
HB 738: Revise procedure laws for county zoning boundary and regulation changes
oppose
LC3503
Pre. Seekins-Crowe
04/02/25 3 pm, Room 405
3/24/25
This bill would require significantly more notice for amendment to county zoning regulations. It is always important to note, the most zone changes are initiated by private individuals not local government, and the additional costs and red tape would be passed on to them.
– Cost prohibitive: the requirement to mail notice for every new zone change would cost thousands of dollars in just postage and more in staff time and resources. This cost will be passed on to the applicant.
  – The bill says “mailed to all residents within the zoning district or sub district”  – This is so unclear and defines no limit in notification area. The ambiguity will lead to challenges on process. The ambiguity would lead to challenges creating risk to private development proposals.
– The creation of procedural due process is peril to any legislative amendment to county zoning a fault in even one notice could stymy regulation changes for years.
– The power to zone and amend regulations is a legislative power not a quasi-judicial act where individuals may be directly and individually impacted. (The bill calls for notice to residents not landowners.)
– This will make development more costly. We recommend “do not pass” on HB738.
View Full Bill
HB 714: Revise laws for divisions of land exempt from subdivision review
oppose
LC2268
Rep. Brewster
04/02/25 3 pm, Rm 405
3/24/25

House Bill 714 includes numerous amendments to the Family Transfer exemption. The most concerning of which is the change to the definition to immediate family member which would include    grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings. It is reasonable to assume a typically family size with grandparents and grandchildren could see the number of lots created to be ten or more. In a large family it’s not hard to envision 20 or even 30 lots created through one family transfer application. On top of that, the bill makes it even harder to deny an application for evading subdivision.

Multiple sections are proposed for amendment, with amendments including the following:

  • Family Transfers would include a gift made as part of a landowner’s estate
  • Lots created can be of a size allowed within the subdivision as imposed by the governing body or through a private covenant
  • Restrictions on the affected parcels would apply after the division; these include restrictions imposed by the governing body or private covenant
  • Transfers to minors must be in compliance with the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act
  • Public notice would be required to adjoining landowners within 5 days after the application is filed; the applicant is required to provide this notice
  • A public hearing is required if requested by an adjoining landowner
  • Documented evidence of evasion is required for an application to be denied
  • Two affidavits are required: 1) one prepared by Attorney General to be used by governing body, and 2) another that includes the applicant’s intentions
  • An applicant is not required to appear before the governing body
  • The fine for evasion doubles from $5000 to $10,000 (the only allowable sanction)
  • Definitions are amended; immediate family member is amended to include grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings

This bill adds considerable and largely unnecessary detail to Family Transfer review. It involves additional process within a limited timeline. Of concern are provisions for the applicant to provide noticing, a higher bar to prove evasion, unnecessary red tape involving the application, and a lack of a requirement to appear before the governing body.  It’s not clear what is meant by the lot sizes allowed in the subdivision by the governing body. We recommend “do not pass” on HB 714.

View Full Bill
HB 233: Provide for transfer of title of open spaces in final plat to HOA
watch
LC2535
Rep. Griffith
(S) Local Gov 3/17/25 3pm Rm 405
2/14/25

This bill will allow dedicated parkland in a subdivision to be transferred to an HOA.  It’s not uncommon to see parkland held and managed by HOA’s, so the concept is nothing new. What this bill allows is for the transfer to occur after the fact, which requires a public hearing by the jurisdiction. At this time we don’t have any cause for concern.

View Full Bill
HB 520: Revise laws to clarify that local prohibitions on conveying family transfer parcels do not apply to conveyances involving lenders
support
LC2576
Rep. Brewster
(S) Local Gov 3/17/25 03pm Rm 405
3/5/25

This bill cleans up some language in the family transfer statutes, primarily dealing with what to do if someone forecloses on a property during the two-year waiting window. This appears to address a legitimate issue for lenders, and we don’t see it creating any loopholes.

View Full Bill
SB 275: Allow revocation of agricultural covenant on lands annexed into municipality
support
LC0914
Senator Mandeville
(H) Judiciary 3/18/25 8am Rm 137
2/21/25

The Montana Association of Planners would like to express our support for SB 275. As the law
currently stands, a parcel with agricultural covenants that is annexed into a municipality must
undergo subdivision review before the parcel can be developed. The subdivision review process
is required even if the development plans for the property don’t necessarily qualify as a
“subdivision” pursuant to §76-3-103 MCA. We believe removing the mandatory subdivision
review step under these circumstances makes sense and could make the development process
more efficient.
The annexation process includes considerable discretion on the part of the municipality, such as
how an annexed property is zoned, and therefore we think this bill would be even better if the
lifting of the agricultural covenant through the annexation process was discretionary rather than
automatic. This change would allow a municipality to consider the totality of the circumstances
when annexing a property and decide whether it is appropriate in a specific instance to remove
the covenant.

View Full Bill
1 2 3

Previous Legislative Sessions