Montana Smart Growth Coalition

Interim Committees:
Water Policy Interim Committee (WPIC)
WPIC will be studying the exempt well loophole through HB 602.
The next WPIC meeting is on January 10th in Helena. The Committee needs to start really making some headway on finding policy recommendations that can be drafted and discussed. WPIC will hit the road in the summer to get feedback from constituents most effected by the exempt well loophole. Stay tuned on these public hearing because we will want to get a high turnout that advocates for solutions that close the loophole and close the perverse incentives for growth outside city boundaries.

Education and Local Government (ELG)
ELG will be studying the exemption from subdivision for lease or rent through HJR 39.
The next ELG Committee meeting is not scheduled. There are diverse working groups set up through the Department of Commerce that are discussing potential solutions to this exemption from subdivision review. If this is not addressed appropriately, this could become the land use loophole for development in high growth and amenity areas, which is potentially impact water, traffic, wildlife, and public health and safety.

2011 Legislative Session: The 2011 legislative session, which concluded on April 28th, 2011, tested MSGC and its member groups. During much of the session, we focused on defending existing planning and conservation laws from aggressive efforts to weaken or repeal them. However, we did have a few positive steps forward as well. Overall, we were successful in stopping the most egregious bills and were able to push through a few good bills. Moreover, MSGC demonstrated that it has the ability to bring together all the interest groups necessary to find long-term solutions.

Pro-Smart Growth Bills Passed:

HB 403: An act eliminating the requirement that local option cluster development and open space regulations mandate that open space in cluster must solely be preserved through an irrevocable covenant. This is a bill that the MSGC worked hard to develop with the sponsor during the interim session. Benefit:The law will incentivize more cluster developments.
SB 103: An act exempting from permitting the development of ground water wells and springs for use in certain heating and cooling applications. This bill allows ground source heat pumps to have an exemption from the water permitting process because the water is injected back into the aquifer. Benefit:This encourages the development of highly efficient heating and cooling system that would otherwise be discouraged by the water permitting process.
HB 28: An act requiring that proposed drainfield mixing zones be located on an adjoining right-of-way; allowing location of a drainfield mixing zone on an adjoining right-of-way; allowing the location of a drainfield mixing zone outside the subdivision if an easement or other authorization is obtained. Benefit: This was a top priority of the Water Policy Interim Committee (WPIC) and MSGC because it provides stronger guarantees for water quality.
HB 52: An act providing rulemaking authority to the Board of Environmental Review to regulate reclaimed wastewater from public sewage systems. Benefit:This was another WPIC bill that allows municipalities to develop greywater systems for treating their water instead of building a larger and more expensive treatment plant. It is a good water reuse bill that encourages thinking outside the box for water conservation solutions.

Anti-Smart Growth Bills Defeated:

HB 366: An act revising county-level interim zoning requirements and procedure. Hazard:This bill essentially got rid of interim zoning in the cases where an emergency is declared, which would have made it easier to develop an industrial sand and gravel pit in a residential area.
SB 379: An act generally revising county zoning laws. Hazard: This bill would have given large land owners disproportionate powers to protest zoning. For example, it would have given Plum Creek Timber Company the ability to block current zoning efforts in the Swan Valley and other areas where they are selling their forest lands.
HB 542: An act revising criteria for local government review of proposed subdivisions and information provided as part of a review. Hazard: This bill radically shifted the criteria for subdivision review, removing review of impacts on agricultural land, and not allowing for review of cumulative impacts of future subdivisions.
HB 494: An act revising important review provisions governing exemptions from subdivision for the sale, lease, rent, or other conveyances of building, structures, or other improvement. Hazard:This bill provided an exemption that was too broad in regard to reviewing subdivisions. The review process is important part of planning to protect water quality and review impacts to wildlife, as well as impacts on neighbors due to increased traffic or demands on emergency services.
HB 402: An act providing that a sand and gravel operation may not be prohibited under certain circumstances in an area zoned residential. Hazard: This bill went too far by granting sand and gravel operations more ability to develop in residential areas.
HB 629: An act generally revising subdivision law, revising the exemption for the rent or lease of buildings or structures or parts of building or structures. Hazard: Another bill that went too far in its approach to subdivision for rent or lease to grant exemptions for large subdivisions from a review process that looks at impacts including to water, wildlife, roads and emergency services.

2009 Legislative Session:

Pro-Smart Growth Bills Passed:

HB 486: this was our flagship land use bill in 2009. It is the culmination of four years of work with a wide variety of groups. HB 486 was introduced as a consensus bill, but it was radically amended in the Senate. In the end, we were able to clean it up in the conference committee. HB 486, amongst other things: 1) Modernizes Montana’s zoning statutes - making them more flexible, making smart growth and other innovative zoning easier, and requiring both city and county zoning to promote efficient urban growth; 2) Increases public notice for the creation of county zoning districts; 3) Adds public notice provisions to interim county zoning statutes and makes it easier for counties to use interim zoning not just for emergencies but also for “exigent” or urgency situations; 4) Eliminates a potentially dangerous and unused streamline subdivision review process and substitutes it for the streamline process under 76-3-616 that we helped pass with the support of the Montana Association Realtors in 2007; 5) Allows local government to require developers to build the infrastructure necessary for a subdivision before they can sell lots; 6) Requires public hearings for variances from subdivision regulations, except for first minor subdivisions; and, 7) Makes the subdivision process more predictable for everyone including making it clear that the aggregation of lots is not a subdivision and clarifying when the time period for challenging a subdivision decision begins.
HB 40: This bill streamlines the water rights permitting process while maintaining protections for senior water rights holders and in-stream flows. It is an essential step toward closing the exempt well loophole that has subsidized inefficient and sprawling development patterns on the backs of senior water rights holders.
HB 402: This bill gets rid of the sunset date for the Land Banking program for state lands and increases the amount of state land that can be part of the program to 250,000 acres. We strongly supported this bill to help DNRC improve the state lands portfolio to include more public access, create a higher return from state lands, consolidate ownership and make it easier to manage state lands, and protect habitat. This is also a critical part of the state’s efforts acquire Plum Creek lands. States lands sold or purchase through the land banking program must be guided by Real Estate Management Plan rules which regulate how state lands can be developed or sold for development.
SB 120: This bill revamps how controlled ground water areas can be designated in Montana. We supported this bill because the current designation process has led to virtually no designations of permanent controlled ground water areas in the last ten years. We were also instrumental in ensuring that a direct citizen petition for the designation of controlled groundwater areas remained in the law.
SB 131: This bill directs Montana DNRC to designate wildland urban interface (WUI) areas in all 56 counties in Montana. These designations will help both the state and local governments plan how to protect people and property in WUI areas. This bill is an important piece of the WUI planning and regulation process that we helped to begin during the 2007 session.
SB 305: This began as one of the worst land use bills of the session, but after ensuring that our amendments were made to the bill in both chambers it became a smart growth bill. SB 305 creates a new longer subdivision review time limit for large subdivisions (i.e., 80 working days for 50 plus lot subdivisions versus 60 working days for subdivisions between 5 and 50 lots) in exchange for the adoption of a penalty if local governments do not meet subdivision review time limits. The penalty, which is a fee not to exceed the subdivision review fees, also serves the important purpose of ensuring that a court would not order automatic approval of a subdivision if a local government does not meet the review time limits.
HB 674: This bill authorizes the state to issue bonds for $21 million to help the state purchase Plum Creek lands as part of the sale of 300,000 acres of Plum Creek lands to the state, federal government, and conservation buyers.

Anti-Smart Growth Bills Defeated:

SB 402: This radical and very poorly drafted takings bill would have made virtually any government action subject to a takings lawsuit – even if that government action would protect neighbor’s property rights or taxpayers from having to subsidize a poorly placed or planned development. It would have had a chilling effect on state and local regulations and would have led to countless lawsuits.
SB 345: This bill would have undermined the county initiated zoning and interim process.