Toggle Mobile
SB 168: Revise laws related to lakeshore protection
oppose
LC1009
(S) Hertz
(S) Committee Report--Bill Passed as Amended
1/27/25

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.

SB 146: Creating the private property protection act
oppose
LC0975
Senator Beard
Amended in E.A.
2/6/25

UPDATE: This bill was amended in Executive Action and passed out of committee. The gist of the amendment is it replaces “public health and safety” with “compelling government interest.” We have not reviewed the bill as amended at this time. For the time being, our position will remain opposed.

We are opposed to SB 146 and urge a “Do Not Pass”

SB 146 is a property rights bill that establishes a standard where plans, policies, regulations, and development approvals can only consider public health and safety in the decision making process. This standard is incredibly narrow and directly contradicts existing growth policy statutes, zoning laws, subdivision review criteria, and the framework of the Montana Land Use Planning Act. These contradictions will result in a litigious development review process and significantly impact decision-making as well as the private sector’s ability to secure entitlements.

It is important to highlight that this law will affect all aspects of our planning statutes, including development approvals. With the vague language in this bill, even permitted uses and administrative approvals could be subject to this new standard. For example, a permit for a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), even if allowed under other aspects of the law, could face public health and safety challenges if neighbors argued that their property rights were affected. If the governing body or the courts find the proposal fails to meet the requirement of being “demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental interest in public health or safety,” the permit could be denied or invalidated. It is crucial to remember that property rights extend to all property owners, including neighbors—not just the applicant.

Back to how the contradictions in statute created by this bill will impact the Montana Land Use Planning Act. The Montana Land Use Planning Act requires that the rules and regulations jurisdictions adopt be tied to their adopted land use plan. The permitting process for development applications is significantly simplified and, in many cases, administrative. This provides predictability and reduces risk for the development community. There is far less subjectivity—if you meet the rules, you get your permit.

The framework of the Montana Land Use Planning Act has gained national attention and is becoming a model for planning reform in this country. However, the litigious framework of SB 146 will undo the predictability that the Montana Land Use Planning Act creates by installing a subjective standard that every permit must meet.

Does this apartment building demonstrate that it is necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental interest in public health or safety? Or does it increase traffic on my neighborhood street? We guess the courts will decide.

 

HB 233: Provide for transfer of title of open spaces in final plat to HOA
watch
LC2535
Rep. Griffith
(S) First Reading
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.

SB 121: Revise the land use and planning act
support
LC0016
Sen. Mandeville
(S) Committee Report--Bill Passed as Amended
2/14/25

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.

Previous Legislative Sessions