[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6621364,"mediaKeyId","2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32","parentId",2802928,"title","Bill to tilt ambiguous zoning decisions \"in favor of use\" wins support, draws preservation concerns","audioSeconds",2816,"startMs",2180000,"endMs",4996000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32&start=2180&end=4996","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32/thumbnail_2180000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6621364/Montana/Bill-to-tilt-ambiguous-zoning-decisions-in-favor-of-use-wins-support-draws-preservation-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621364-b14b7064e0a7ccb4da69a15edca59c0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179280&Signature=TQ~29jvMhL0fugMwMzn1UnrjtEciXs-qFvEFy9MrC9uAnI4I4-c80EEk8-kDsaHG0zguAqeCMnoaZ7KP3QJH5Hm~LyjyJ-OAJJtXUEV7cqGNmykS0PDXd1gwvIEsU0LWekSjzmWImYBDbwT55engiosni2ZHYrLda33T76HgAxo-XsWfaa102WX1n6J3AF0-fFasKaxBFRPmwZgZa2sS9Z4a2Wf7l7nzaqEXG-E10G0cbrnYNhSQIvgkuVm5oKBppCuoU82ETKfh2j2X2i4zDU28Cnsl0EXg85ZVCKS3CGQjaum9jR5R5QaeWoY1MENPUd5XR6Q~OAMCR5O3Xdf2Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","Sen. Greg Hertz, sponsor of Senate Bill 214, told the House Local Government Committee the bill would require that ambiguity in zoning regulations over whether a nonconforming use is allowed be interpreted \"in favor of the nonconforming use.\" He said the measure is intended to protect property owners who relied on long-standing uses when local rules were amended.

\"An ambiguity or an uncertainty in the zoning regulations as to whether a nonconforming use is allowed or whether the use was allowed when it was commenced must be interpreted in favor of the nonconforming use,\" Sen. Hertz said.

Proponents ranged from policy groups to individual property owners who testified they had relied on long-standing uses to afford or maintain property. Tanner Avery of the Frontier Institute said the bill \"creates a presumption of freedom in the interpretation enforcement of zoning\" and would prevent local officials from relying on ambiguity to prohibit uses. Wendy Dixon, a homeowner from Bridger Canyon, described getting assurances from county officials that renting a single-family dwelling was a permitted use and said later reinterpretation threatened her ability to keep her property.

Supporters including attorney Stephanie Baucus said the bill largely codifies Montana Supreme Court precedent and could reduce litigation over ambiguous zoning enforcement. Several witnesses, including homeowners and short-term rental operators, said inconsistent local interpretations had forced them into costly legal fights or the risk of losing property use they had relied on for years.

Preserve Montana and other preservation advocates entered formal opposition, focusing on a provision in section 5 that removes or restricts authority of local historic preservation boards to review zoning permits or variances that affect historic properties. Jenny Budenborg of Preserve Montana said the change \"impacts this important preservation network and the historic integrity, character, and viability of hundreds of historic buildings and districts in Montana.\" She urged the committee to oppose SB 214 or to consider an amendment.

Sen. Hertz said he removed the stronger authority for preservation boards because he believed it gave \"too much authority\" to an unelected board and that elected local governing bodies should retain the final decision.

The committee also heard informational testimony from Kate Hampton of the State Historic Preservation Office, who described the certified local government program and the connection between local boards and federal preservation funding and oversight.

No final committee action on SB 214 is recorded in the provided transcript segment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Local Government - Mar 27, 2025 16:00 - 19:00","oneSentenceSummary","Sen. Greg Hertz told the House Local Government Committee that Senate Bill 214 would require ambiguous zoning rules about nonconforming uses be interpreted in favor of the existing use, a change supporters say protects longstanding property rights while preservationists say it weakens local historic-review authority.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621374,"Montana bill would move RV and mobile-home parks from subdivision rules to building-for-rent regulations",796,60000,856000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32&start=60&end=856","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32/thumbnail_60000.jpg","/articles/6621374/Montana/Montana-bill-would-move-RV-and-mobile-home-parks-from-subdivision-rules-to-building-for-rent-regulations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621374-721b6413773a0f5949b47e2a8cac692f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179280&Signature=fOw93ek~QEzm1JSKivtkAyD3RB3XWB3vbOoL40lf56MZx4TFXxE3Lpm50NHnf-3Mst~NkJnFNgsz69cvf4oCNrKyWgm-AToTEbcrJQBQlzYyoUr3b1ammWjRq9BPNPClTFYklbX3id5IOZPZbnQaSb~5dztot2jVY4-MEua4C2l~WSTU-~tXla90PJRY6vh76R74R2OQs8Frn~y5scykcOa68Eie99ufw3eTQ9SM-VQAVYqGfpP2BQLz-YO2iy3VS0rhRN8yjPvTLt0MkDls7lQ9OsLo6pIkteWK6WZrVC2kGiJJrRLo~qmEMfcQGaK-M-lUfAJOoHeyVSMfqPdtYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sen. 74, sponsor of Senate Bill 174, told the House Local Government Committee on Feb. 14 that the bill would remove manufactured-home and recreational-vehicle parks from the Subdivision and Planning Act and regulate them instead under Montana's building-for-lease-or-rent provisions.

The sponsor said the change is intended to shorten a process that now can take months and that \"this bill doesn't fix all of that. Right? There's still gonna be a robust review process, but, it will allow for some options.\" He told the committee the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would still review water, wastewater and stormwater designs.

Jordan Green, vice president of the Montana Association of Planners, testified in support. Green said the subdivision process can be lengthy and risky for developers and that moving such parks into the building-for-lease-or-rent (BLR) rules would \"reduce red tape and streamline the process\" while retaining public participation and protections for natural resources.

Opponents said the change could limit public notice and speed projects into sensitive areas. Matt Olsiser, speaking as an opponent, told the committee that his group's concern is \"this will be less public notice, a quicker process that's going to have RV parks and, like, developments in sensitive areas that the communities might not want those. So in particular, rural waters.\" He said he had not seen the subdivision review as an undue burden and worried the BLR pathway could be faster and provide less community oversight.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on timing and scope. Green said subdivision review may take about \"60 working days\" in many cases and that BLR still provides a 30-day public hearing step for county commissions and city councils. Senator 74 said the bill would apply to all RV parks, from two pads to larger commercial parks.

No formal committee action on SB 174 was recorded in the transcript excerpted for this hearing.

The hearing record indicates supporters view the bill as a way to provide more housing options and a faster permitting path, while opponents fear weaker public notice and the potential for new development in environmentally sensitive rural shoreline and watershed areas.

The committee moved on to other bills after questioning and closing remarks from the sponsor.","Sen. 74 told the House Local Government Committee that Senate Bill 174 would shift regulation of manufactured-home and recreational-vehicle parks out of Montana's subdivision statute and instead govern them under the building-for-lease-or-rent rules, a change supporters say will shorten permitting time while opponents warn could reduce public notice in sensitive areas.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":46,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621360,"Committee executive actions: which bills passed, failed or were tabled during session",1980,6976000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32&start=4996&end=6976","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32/thumbnail_4996000.jpg","/articles/6621360/Montana/Committee-executive-actions-which-bills-passed-failed-or-were-tabled-during-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621360-4ba5e29e8a281d29bbb6e0062feb8bc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179280&Signature=VyeZwLYHbc8LFY9dj7ctIjQ4goQE~VC8v1jRuxpUYonB9awzzq~nJ--I60Xyfj2MxAdcIeoLVQTmpORJWih1RRg-8DAYONRKALiWf7ix~qBoob2HZ1TotY5Fy3CDKRCKAWbrXKE6XcwG0TXiXwvhqrN4yv1T-nM9ungDyITkuUKn0bThIQA9bajaKsQH0QmtLlOZOfs6ugynYIqd6HdPWLdC2LrK9VpbzSIWWhXuBY6SDF~NOEGQku44a1F9kTb9fWLROyDPteskohPsub8L2kJQidZe9I0~Q-AvFOIZ3Gbb~nDscUlQpqoMjB~6vTTHBUNpQV0VMc3S5f6bt5clsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Local Government Committee on Feb. 14 conducted executive action on several bills. The transcript records final outcomes or committee votes for the bills below.

Votes and outcomes recorded in committee (excerpted):

- House Bill 511 (firefighting training facility grant program): The committee considered amendments and a motion to pass the bill as amended. A roll-call vote recorded 8 ayes and 9 noes; the motion failed and the bill was tabled. The committee had earlier adopted a technical amendment (procedural timing change) before the final vote.

- House Bill 830 (local emergency quick response program): The committee adopted an amendment package (1.2) by voice/proxy and then voted on the bill as amended. A roll-call recorded 8 ayes and 9 noes; the motion failed and the bill was tabled.

- Senate Bill 262 (exemption from NEPA review for certain subdivision water and sewer plans): Committee members debated and considered an amendment. The proposed narrowing amendment failed on a 7-10 recorded vote; the underlying bill as presented was subsequently passed out of committee (concurred in) and a sponsor/carrier was identified to carry it further.

- Senate Bill 10: The committee approved SB 10 in executive action by voice vote with proxy tallies recorded (the transcript notes 17 ayes in one voice vote tally) and assigned a sponsor/carrier.

- Senate Bill 175 (revising county zoning procedures): The committee concurred in SB 175 in executive action by voice vote with proxy tallies; sponsors were identified to carry the bill forward.

Notes on procedure and context

- Several actions included proxy votes from absent members; the transcript lists multiple proxy vote entries.
- Some bills had amendments adopted that were described as technical or timing adjustments (for example, changing a July 1 transfer to July 15 in one bill to accommodate fiscal timelines).
- For HB 511 and HB 830 the committee debated policy merits and fiscal timing; both measures failed to receive a majority in the recorded roll-call votes shown in the transcript excerpt.

The committee record in this transcript excerpt ends with several bills passed out of committee and others tabled; sponsors were named to carry the passed bills to the next stage.","During the Feb. 14 House Local Government Committee meeting, the panel considered multiple bills in executive session. Several bills failed to pass out of committee, while several senate bills were concurred in or passed out of committee; the committee also moved and amended other measures.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":81,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621369,"Lakeshore statute-of-limitations bill draws opposition from environmental and county officials",1314,2170000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32&start=856&end=2170","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802928-aee2900eb5fea356353102c955457b32/thumbnail_856000.jpg","/articles/6621369/Montana/Lakeshore-statute-of-limitations-bill-draws-opposition-from-environmental-and-county-officials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621369-e0212a2ee145a1d5cf915d24b3e6298f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179280&Signature=pAFchBcs59ujoO50PNeR36uEk1f9Wg77OVK00egPQGRj18NzBGYQ2X02LQMhdzNY2bwoFgtC7YSga~4XKH346dMfPuqzhFA1fTkCNTqBBtXR0w3uOaAJYYCJ6FJvGT6Ip~cUWoVXq4ObB6yEOM169H-4QEnBUD0tWvXkVlrSZuYgD1ozmQ1UNMZoeLZMCBSOzOYgD6N7OFZ-MSoG-5O6l~-LVa5EcsfNEU69kCU178NjHk4BELQ0cHYajdo5~msVyNvZjMMuLNbcjvSV71GJlrd8wdOFL4yBAWlULvfQyJRVWgKVqexk-TXE2jC8pSvHiOu1x7SRBe6U-nFp~FaISg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sen. Greg Hertz, sponsor of Senate Bill 168, told the House Local Government Committee that the bill would create a three-year statute of limitations for most constructed features in lakeshore protection zones, with exceptions for illegal work that causes documented material harm.

\"So this bill, it applies to clearly visible boat ramps, boat houses, boat shore stations, boat rail system, dock systems, piers, wharfs, and retaining walls,\" Sen. Hertz said, and he noted the bill excludes activities that involve significant dredging or infill. He said the proposed statute would not apply to structures \"that were constructed illegally and that ... cause documented material harm to lakeshore stability, water quality, or aquatic life.\"

The sponsor also described a maintenance exception: \"Minor means less than $10,000 over a 5 year period,\" he said.

Supporters including Mark Taylor, an attorney who participated in the bill's earlier drafting, said the measure converts a straight grandfathering approach into a statute-of-limitations framework that provides landowners with \"stability and certainty.\" Taylor said the bill had been amended with input from the governor's office and other stakeholders.

Opponents urged the committee to reject the bill. Laura Collins of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the documentation required to prove material harm would be costly and that the bill \"would be pretty enticing for property owners that are counting on the likelihood that they might not get caught within this time frame.\" She said the proposal could leave enforcement to \"neighbor to neighbor policing.\"

Karen Alley of the Montana Association of Counties said she was in \"soft opposition\" and worried the bill would create a loophole for minor modifications that would skirt lakeshore permitting. Missoula County shoreline program administrator Matt Heimel said the bill \"would result in unequal application of shoreline protection laws\" and expressed concern that significant adverse impacts to lakes can become apparent more than three years after construction.

Tim Worley, representing the Montana Association of Planners, told the committee that most jurisdictions lack the resources to actively police shoreline violations and that a three-year limitation would \"skew the rules in favor of shoreline violators and unfairly against those who follow the rules.\" Worley said there are better ways to address historic structures in the lakeshore protection zone.

During questioning, committee members asked whether the terms \"documented harm\" and \"material harm\" are defined in statute. The witness representing the planners' association said there is no clear definition in the shoreline statute and that his preference would be that illegal construction alone be the threshold for enforcement.

No formal committee action on SB 168 is recorded in the provided transcript segment.","Sen. Greg Hertz's Senate Bill 168 would create a three-year statute of limitations for most lakeshore work; supporters said it adds certainty for landowners and historic structures while opponents from environmental groups and counties warned it could enable unpermitted construction and make enforcement harder.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to tilt ambiguous zoning decisions "in favor of use" wins support, draws preservation concerns

Montana bill would move RV and mobile-home parks from subdivision rules to building-for-rent regulations

Committee executive actions: which bills passed, failed or were tabled during session

Lakeshore statute-of-limitations bill draws opposition from environmental and county officials