Toggle Mobile

69th Montana Legislative Session

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
HB 782: Revise local planning board laws
support
LC2320
Rep. Kelly
(H) Tabled in Committee
3/5/25

Our membership works closely with County Planning Boards all around the state. One of the biggest challenges facing these Boards is finding and retaining people who have the time, resources, and willingness to serve. Such issues can affect whether a Planning Board has a quorum of members and can then effectively undertake its statutory duties. This bill will give County Commissions the flexibility to appoint a member from the local conservation district if such a member is deemed appropriate versus such an appointment being mandatory. This may be a simple, yet effective
step toward ensuring that County Planning Boards are able to complete their assigned tasks in a timely and legally appropriate manner.

View Full Bill
HB 713: Revise municipal zoning laws
support
LC2267
Rep. Brewster
Transmitted to Senate
3/5/25

We support HB713 as we feel that the removal of protests provisions from zoning is a good way to create efficiencies in the process. An example is in one Montana City there was a recent annexation request with a subsequent zoning that was denied due to a protest from the county residents. The developer had spent money on layout, zoning, and annexation fees. They received the green light from City staff and the City Zoning Commission only to be stopped in the process by not receiving 2/3rds approval required by the protest. It’s situations like this that delay and increase the cost of development. We recommend “do pass” on HB 713.

View Full Bill
SB 266: Revise municipal zoning to allow for triplex and fourplex housing
oppose
LC1655
Sen. Trebas
Transmitted to House
3/3/25

Update: This bill was amended which we are evaluating.

The Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), which Governor Gianforte signed into law on May 17, 2023, transforms the development review process by streamlining the approval process and focusing on predictability for the private sector. In exchange for the significant reductions in red tape, the bill empowers municipalities to adopt planning strategies that align with their unique infrastructure, economic conditions, and public service capabilities. By focusing on local context, MLUPA allows communities to balance growth with the resources available, ensuring that development is responsive to local needs. This approach supports broader statewide housing supply objectives while preserving the ability of local governments to address their specific housing needs and provide for economic growth in a way that works best for their residents. The Montana Association of Planners is concerned that SB 266 erodes the carefully designed framework of options created under MLUPA and moves the goalpost for communities already working to implement this landmark legislation. 

 SB 266 takes a prescriptive approach to zoning that goes against the intent and process established in the MLUPA, and in doing so, supersedes local context, knowledge, and ability to provide services with a one-size fits all approach. The legislature should find ways to incentivize or direct local governments to find ways to facilitate growth that best fits the services available to their community. 

View Full Bill
SB 336: Revise laws related to short-term rentals
oppose
LC1007
Sen, Hertz
Transmitted to House
3/5/25

UPDATE: This bill passed the Senate as amended.  The Legislative Committee has not met to discuss the amendments. Our position on this bill may change following the Committee’s review of the amendments.

In the previous session, the Montana Association of Planners testified before committees in both the Senate and House about how Montana’s planning framework was no longer working for our communities. Growth policies, zoning, and subdivision statutes failed to work together, resulting in an overly complex regulatory system that created significant risks for the development community and uncertainty for residents of Montana cities and counties.

In response, the Montana Legislature passed the Montana Land Use Planning Act. This transformational piece of legislation was specifically designed to simplify and consolidate our planning statutes while providing clear and straightforward development approval processes.

SB 336 is a major step in the wrong direction. This overly complex legislation will undo the significant progress made with the Montana Land Use Planning Act, creating substantial challenges in implementation and increasing bureaucracy in several ways:

Ambiguity: The bill contains vague language, making it difficult for businesses, individuals, and officials to understand their obligations.

Legal Uncertainty: Increased need for legal interpretation will lead to inconsistent enforcement and increased litigation.

Administrative Burden: The complexity of the bill may require additional personnel, oversight, and enforcement mechanisms, leading to larger government budgets.

Lack of Transparency: Complex laws make it difficult for the public to understand the regulation’s purpose, benefits, and effectiveness.

SB 336 does address some issues that arguably need attention. For example, Part I zoning is often outdated and difficult to amend, and there is a need to define short-term rentals as either commercial or residential uses. The bill acknowledges that regulating short-term rentals is necessary and follows the approach some Montana communities have taken by allowing them in certain zoning districts while prohibiting them in others. However, the overly complex analysis and notice requirements—different from all other zoning uses—contradict the very regulatory simplification that the Montana Land Use Planning Act sought to achieve.

We urge a “Do Not Pass” vote on SB 336.

View Full Bill
SB 418: Generally revise laws relating to home based businesses
oppose
LC1955
Sen. Boldman
Transmitted to House
3/3/25

The Montana Association of Planners is opposed to SB 418 as presented. Most municipal
zoning regulations allow the operation of home occupations in otherwise residential districts
provided that reasonable standards are met to ensure the home occupation is not incompatible
with surrounding residential uses and that the commercial use is clearly secondary or incidental
to the primary residential use of the property. SB 418 prohibits many of the common-sense
home-occupation standards found in most municipal zoning codes and without such sideboards,
home occupations would essentially just become commercial businesses operating in
residential areas. For example SB 418 would prohibit the regulation of “no-impact” home
business that meet certain vague and generally undefined standards. These include a meeting
municipal occupancy limits or that a home occupation cannot generate substantial traffic. Most if
not all of the State’s municipalities do not have established occupancy limits for a residential
dwelling unit. Thus, there is really no limit on the number of people who could live in a dwelling
unit. In addition, phrases such as “do not generate substantial traffic” would be open to a wide
variety of interpretations and could lead to confusion in administrating a zoning code and
potentially litigation.
Home occupations can make valuable contributions to local economies, but they need to be
conducted such that they blend in with the surrounding properties, do not generate undue
impacts and burdens to the surrounding homeowners, or result in a reduction in value to the
surrounding neighborhood.

View Full Bill
HB 492: Revise municipal zoning laws related to parking requirements
oppose
LC0886
Rep. Zolnikov
Transmitted to Senate
3/5/25

UPDATE: This bill was amended significantly. The Legislative Committee has not reviewed the amendments.

This is a parking reform bill that is highly prescriptive, establishing a statewide parking standard that includes commercial uses. The issue is not parking reform itself but rather the imposition of statewide zoning regulations and financial penalties on local governments if they request more parking than allowed by the statute. For example, under this law, a 50,000-square-foot Super Walmart would only be required to provide 10 parking spaces.

These ongoing efforts to address specific pet issues often benefit select individuals, companies, or interest groups rather than the public. Continually modifying laws to serve narrow interests can lead to inefficient government spending and increased administrative burdens. Most Montana communities are not equipped to enforce these rules, effectively making this an unfunded mandate.

A better approach is to focus on comprehensive, well-thought-out policies that address root issues rather than short-term or politically motivated fixes.

View Full Bill
SB 304: Revise Montana lakeshore laws
watch
LC1858
Sen. Fern
(S) Tabled in Committee
3/3/25

This is a lakeshore bill that clarifies the role of local governments in enforcing lakeshore regulations. We have no objections to the bill’s language, but we find it to be very specific and possibly aimed at addressing a particular issue. In general, we are cautious about using statewide legislation to resolve local matters, though we are not certain if that is the case here. We have not yet had the opportunity to understand the reasoning behind this bill. For now, our position is to “watch.”

View Full Bill
1 2 3

Previous Legislative Sessions