Toggle Mobile

69th Montana Legislative Session

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
SB 252: Revise land use laws related to manufactured and factory built homes
support
LC1861
Sen. Fern
(H) Local Gov 3/20/25 3 pm, Rm 472
3/3/25

MAP supports SB 252 as introduced into the House. This bill simply states that manufactured homes must be treated in zoning like other residential uses in the same district. There was a historic tendency in zoning regulations to require additional requirements for mobile homes, such as additional yard requirements or larger lot sizes. This practice has largely stopped, but these types of requirements may still be found in older zoning codes. Manufactured homes provide an affordable housing option and should not be unfairly restricted, ensuring equal housing opportunities. Modern manufactured homes meet high construction and safety standards, making them compatible with other residential structures. Allowing them in the same zoning districts as other residential uses promotes diverse, stable communities and maximizes efficient land use for housing development.

View Full Bill
SB 243: Amend zoning regulations to allow taller buildings
oppose
LC0808
Senator Boldman
(H) Local Gov 3/20/25 3pm Rm 472
3/3/25

As one of the primary authors of SB 382, our organization is focused on simplifying state
statutes and streamlining processes to provide predictability and consistency in our laws.
Last session, when MAP testified on SB 382—the MLUPA—we pointed out to this committee
how our planning enabling statutes (Chapters 1, 2, and 3 in Title 76) had bloated to 109 pages
and over thirty-two thousand words. This regulatory framework was slowing down development,
creating uncertainty, and preventing our communities from responding to market forces and
changing needs.
SB 382 cut the length of our enabling statutes by more than half, significantly simplifying our
state laws, establishing clear and well-structured rules, and implementing periodic reviews to
keep up with market trends.
However, we are seeing a trend that concerns our organization: bills addressing niche issues
and singular priorities that are slowly pushing us back toward bloated statutes. We worry this
trend will lead to inefficiencies, unintended consequences, and policy setbacks.
When considering bills like SB 243, we urge the committee to carefully weigh the pros and cons
of expanding the regulatory framework. Specifically, we encourage consideration of the
following:

What is the bill trying to address? SB 243 aims to increase housing supply—an
important and worthy goal.
Will the bill actually help? No, it will not. The primary barrier to taller buildings is cost,
not zoning. Taller structures require larger foundations, steel superstructures, elevators,
and other costly components. The real issue is the high cost of construction, and this bill
will not spur an increase in housing development.
Are there downsides to the bill? Possibly. Taller buildings require specialized fire
equipment, such as ladder trucks, which are expensive. Many communities affected by
this bill lack the necessary equipment, which could drive up insurance costs.
Is there a simpler way to achieve the same outcome? In this case, not really. It is a
simple bill, though it moves the state one step closer to turning state law into a de facto
statewide zoning ordinance.

We do not see this bill as especially impactful. It will not increase housing supply because it
does not address the real market problem, and those same market forces will prevent taller
buildings in communities where they are not economically viable.
So, is it a good bill? We don’t believe it solves an actual problem. We dislike its specificity, and
we do not think it simplifies statutes or processes. For these reasons, we urge the committee to
consider tabling the legislation.

 

 

View Full Bill
SB 121: Revise the land use and planning act
support
LC0016
Sen. Mandeville
(H) Local Gov 3/20/25 3pm Rm 472
3/10/25

When the Montana Land Use Planning Act (SB 382) was created in the 2023 session, it was a lengthy and complex bill. While every effort was made to be thorough with SB 382, there was an awareness that there were undoubtedly some details in the final language of the bill that would require attention in two years when the Legislature reconvened. As Montana communities have worked to implement the Montana Land Use and Planning Act over the last couple of years, a few of these items have revealed themselves.

This bill addresses some necessary fixes to the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA) that planners have noted since the bills adoption.

These fixes are:

  1. Addressing extraterritorial jurisdiction
  2. Including the municipal exemption for sewer
  3. Allowing jurisdictions subject to the MLUPA that have city-county planning board or similar planning board that are currently allowed under law to be retain representation.
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
3/10/25

This bill passed the Senate and is on to the House.

We are supporting this bill. We have some friendly amendments that we believe will be included in executive action.

  • Adjust title on page 1, line 12 – 76-2-205 – Procedure for adoption and amendment of
    regulations and boundaries.
    We feel this change is consistent with the intent of the bill. This adjustment
    clarifies that this section of statute includes requirements for amendments too.
    • Adjust requirement on page 2, line 22 in 76-2-205(8)(b)(i) – the specific a general
    description of proposed changes to the regulations
    When working on comprehensive amendments to zoning regulations, it would be
    difficult to describe every single specific change to the regulation in a legal
    notice. We feel that a statement summarizing the changes should suffice in such
    situations. We also feel this will reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Example, the City of
    Bozeman lost a court case challenging an update to their zoning regulations
    because they failed to specifically call out an amendment that changed where
    fraternity/sorority houses could be located.

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
2/14/25

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. That said, MAP does have a couple of concerns that we would like to see addressed
in the bill.
The Building for Lease or Rent laws as they currently stand do not address “Buildings” owned
by someone other than the landowner. Adjustments to the law are necessary to ensure there is
authority for a local government to review spaces that are rented or leased for the purpose of
someone other than the landowner to place a “Building.” If this is not fixed, the bill would leave a
gaping hole in the review process for these types of projects and have detrimental impacts on
public health and safety.
As more types of projects fall under the umbrella of Building for Lease or Rent Regulations,
communities need to be able to adopt meaningful standards for these projects. Such standards
should make decisions more predictable for applicants. Unlike the subdivision and zoning
statutes, the Building for Lease or Rent statutes require a supermajority vote by the governing
body to adopt such standards. From our perspective it would be sensible to adjust the law so
that it only requires a majority vote.

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

UPDATE: This bill was an amended. We are reviewing the amendment as it addressed some concerns of ours, which may end in our changing our position.

Senate Bill 214 requires that the interpretation of zoning provisions favors the free use of property if there is any ambiguity regarding whether the use is permitted. However, zoning codes do not explicitly list every possible land use as either permitted or prohibited. This means that some level of interpretation is always necessary.

For example, if a zoning code states that “retail businesses” are allowed in a district but does not explicitly mention cannabis dispensaries, an ambiguous interpretation could lead to unintended approvals. Similarly, if “light industrial use” is permitted but does not define whether that includes auto salvage yards, the bill could open the door for such businesses to operate without clear local approval.

To uphold zoning’s purpose of preventing nuisances and protecting public health and safety, local governments may have to create exhaustive zoning provisions listing every possible land use, which would be an overwhelming and impractical task. Without such specificity, undesired uses—such as nightclubs opening in quiet residential neighborhoods or large-scale livestock operations appearing near suburban developments—could be difficult to regulate.

Furthermore, State law and local zoning provisions already provide ways for citizens to appeal land use interpretations if they believe they are incorrect. For example, if a homeowner disputes a local ruling that a short-term rental violates zoning laws, they can seek an appeal through the local zoning board.

This bill also affects the public participation process, which is critical for local land use decisions. Zoning codes undergo significant public input before adoption, with hearings and comment periods where residents can voice concerns about how a zoning decision might impact their neighborhood. Senate Bill 214 would drastically limit the public’s ability to weigh in on land uses that affect their homes, businesses, and services.

For instance, if a new industrial warehouse is proposed near a residential area, current processes allow for public hearings where residents can express concerns about traffic, pollution, and noise. However, if ambiguity in the zoning code must automatically favor property owners, the warehouse could be approved without meaningful public input, despite community opposition.

Additionally, Senate Bill 214 weakens historic preservation efforts by removing the power of local historic preservation boards to review zoning permits and variances for historic structures and districts. This change could be harmful to communities that rely on these boards for guidance on developments affecting their historic buildings.

For example, in a town like Virginia City, which thrives on historical tourism, allowing modern commercial developments without historic board review could jeopardize the town’s aesthetic, diminishing its appeal to tourists. This could lead to economic losses for local businesses that depend on heritage tourism. Furthermore, historic preservation boards play a crucial role in helping governments and building owners qualify for historic tax credits and grant funding. Without their oversight, communities may lose access to these financial resources.

Due to the high level of ambiguity this bill introduces, the lack of public participation in local land use decisions, and the potential for unintended and harmful consequences, we urge a “Do Not Pass” on Senate Bill 214.

View Full Bill
SB 168: Revise laws related to lakeshore protection
oppose
LC1009
(S) Hertz
(H) Local Gov 03/27/2025 3pm Rm 472
2/21/25

UPDATE: This bill was amended in EA. We have not had a chance to review the amendments. They may change our position.

The Montana Association of Planners opposes SB 168. Our primary concern is the 2-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
1 2 3

Previous Legislative Sessions