Bill to allow counties to terminate some zoning districts passing with significant support

Yahoo

01-04-2025

The main stairway to the third floor of the Montana Capitol building is seen on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan)
One member of the public said the bill is 'nothing short of tyrannical,' but the sponsor and a planner said it will help counties resolve zoning when numerous districts create an administrative challenge.
Monday, the Senate Local Government committee unanimously passed House Bill 614 on a voice vote, and Chairman Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, said he believes it's a good bill.
The problem, as described by supporters, is zoning districts initiated by residents, or 'part one' districts, can start piling up in a county.
When residents want certain standards in place, commissioners may create a 'part one' district' when 60% of the property owners in an affected area, as small as 40 acres, petition for one.
Each one might have its own definition and administrative standards.
'I think there's a lot of these 'part one' districts that kind of get abandoned, and there's no real way in statute right now for a county to clean those up,' Sen. Mandeville said.
For example, bill sponsor Rep. Greg Overstreet, R-Stevensville, told the committee last week it used to be 'quite the rage' for citizens to petition and create their own districts in a county.
But counties don't have a way to terminate 'zombie zoning districts,' and they become a patchwork that's difficult to manage, he said.
'Now, we have, for example in Ravalli County, 48 zoning districts, and they don't match up with countywide zoning,' said Overstreet, who also credited Mandeville with the idea for the legislation.
But Kendra Keating, who lives in the Spring Hill district in Gallatin County, said she moved there specifically because of its protections.
She said it scares her to think the state could give the county authority to take away the interests of the citizens who came together to form the district.
'The way this is written, where we can completely lose everything that we have, doesn't seem appropriate,' Keating said.
The bill came from the Montana Association of Planners, and at its hearing last week, it drew support from that organization and from a county commissioner.
However, roughly a dozen residents said the bill would negatively affect private property rights, and it would upend the ability of residents to manage development in a way they believe is best for their area.
For example, one resident said the district in which he lives is prone to fire, and the district takes wildfire into consideration.
The bill would give counties a way to terminate the zoning districts under a couple of circumstances, and it has earned a lot of support from legislators, although it lost some votes as it passed through the House.
In February, it passed unanimously out of the House Local Government committee. It initially passed 94-4 on the House floor, although it lost some support on third reading, with 80 yes votes and 19 against.
The bill would allow a board of county commissioners, after providing notice to the public of a hearing, to pass a resolution to terminate a zoning district under one of two circumstances.
It could do so if the county decided to comply with provisions of the Montana Land Use Planning Act.
Adopted in 2023, the Lane Use and Planning Act outlines steps, including public participation, for managing growth and development. It requires some cities to participate, and it allows other local governments to choose to comply.
The commissioners could also take action to dissolve a district if they've established a larger district that encompasses the land that's up for termination.
Mandeville said the bill doesn't allow county commissioners to strip a district of zoning altogether.
He said the fear is that commissioners will make a change that, for instance, suddenly allows a nuclear plant in a neighborhood, or completely undermines the interests of residents.
However, Mandeville said he doesn't believe that's realistic, especially given the public process.
He said the bill means counties can consolidate similar districts in a way that retains the unique characteristics of each, but also makes administration more straightforward.
'It would be unlikely that this process would be used to completely subvert what the 'part one' district had required,' Mandeville said.
At its hearing last week, the bill received harsh criticism from residents near Bozeman and a district in Gallatin County, who argued the benefits of the districts outweigh the administrative costs.
At least a couple of them suggested the process for terminating districts should remain in the hands of the citizens, and commissioners shouldn't have the right to undo their work.
Deanna Campbell raises sheep and chickens on her land, she grazes a few head of cattle, and she said she likes the country life.
But Campbell said HB 614 is bureaucratic overreach, and it would affect people's property taxes and their retirements, all without a vote by the people.
'To let elected officials change zoning without a vote, maybe just under pressure from developers or state mandates, is nothing short of tyrannical and a betrayal of Montana's tradition of local control and citizen participation,' Campbell said.
'Please don't let our country way of life become collateral damage to high density development and government overreach.'
Wendy Dickson, who described herself as a fifth generation Montanan and property owner in Gallatin County, said some local governments used to respect property rights, but now they even want to dictate who occupies a home.
Dickson asked legislators to respect the history of rural zoning and to keep self-governing powers with the people.
She suggested counties be allowed to initiate termination, but citizens retain the ultimate authority to do so.
'Unfortunately, it seems the Montana motto of 'live and let live' is now lost in some parts of our state where newcomers love Montana so much, they want to regulate everything,' Dickson said.
Charles Howe, who ranches in Spring Hill, said fire is a concern in the area, fueled by winds that blow into the valley.
He said the zoning residents worked on, in place for decades, takes the fire and the landscape into consideration.
Howe said he hopes anything the legislature passes will maintain similar protections to avoid blazes such as the Palisades fire in California.
Monday, Mandeville said he considered amendments to the bill, but did not see one that would address everyone's concerns.
He also said he believes county commissioners won't terminate a district if citizens have bought into it.
At the hearing last week, Ross Butcher, a commissioner from Fergus County representing the Montana Association of Counties, spoke in support of the bill.
Butcher said the bill offers a straightforward process to allow commissioners to end districts when commissioners are seeking a more comprehensive approach or if a county intends to opt into the Land Use Planning Act.
Sean O'Callaghan, with the Montana Association of Planners and Gallatin County, said the bill doesn't cut out the public because it allows for a public process.
O'Callaghan said it's challenging, time consuming and expensive for counties to maintain all the different zoning regulations that operate independently, with different definitions and administrative standards.
'Counties are looking for solutions to this situation,' O'Callaghan said.
He said HB 614 allows counties to combine new zoning regulations over the top of existing ones, then dissolve old ones, and it is a simple solution.