[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,76,88,100,111],{"_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",6628317,"mediaKeyId","2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a","parentId",2718399,"title","Committee weighs bill to allow up to six-story buildings in commercial zones to boost housing supply","audioSeconds",2952,"startMs",89000,"endMs",3041000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a&start=89&end=3041","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a/thumbnail_89000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6628317/Montana/Committee-weighs-bill-to-allow-up-to-six-story-buildings-in-commercial-zones-to-boost-housing-supply","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628317-a9f96eb7caa0aac5c85b17f61bb54b9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607734&Signature=kq4GufZdWaPwVt~4Drh8GB2SAi6toCAhx8TaV~JO-6EbLjRAcJoeQ4MygVJOCguY2tVac-k2F4noTrYtoEao8vxn3NcnVdlY6Rjqe5g93vUBjqElxsCCVjrKeQL-eIrvjCS9kgSH-GsPESjWS2Lzw6Wvb5QJ5xm9a4lfbcEdEct~CFz9P2wyJgvZhD2j2ADhkYS9WIy4KxlqCdQEsvTNFOVANxsCMm0wt74WWZDacLfOTza-49GcfSOZXTC2CjWftW-uPU6bDspumPwSvJLglMqSjWVZMz34Fo0LIToDYSH71Jb59wEJpCVEqXk4r6W4oGLw0A9RQdKEoiI3zj5Vsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","Senators and representatives on the House Local Government Committee heard testimony for and against Senate Bill 243 on whether cities should be required to allow up to six-story buildings by right in commercial zones in larger Montana cities.

Proponents told the committee the bill would create “predictability” for developers and encourage investment in housing. Opponents said raising allowable height without affordability requirements could increase land values and construction costs and would strip local governments of tools to manage transitions to lower-density neighborhoods.

Supporters, including Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish and Tanner Avery of the Frontier Institute, said the measure builds on last session’s housing reforms and would allow “5-over-1” mixed-use designs and other mid-rise configurations in commercial areas where people shop and work. Brown told the committee the change would reduce per-unit land costs by allowing more units on the same footprint, while Avery described the bill as “low-hanging fruit” to increase supply without mandating taller buildings.

Opponents included Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns; local planners and officials from Bozeman and Billings; and members of the public. Lynch said commercial zones in local zoning practice include many types of areas — including neighborhood commercial areas — and warned the bill could force communities to allow taller buildings in places that currently use step-down height limits to transition to single-family neighborhoods. Wyeth Friday, planning and community services director for Billings, described existing local tools such as step-backs and lower maximums in transition zones and said a state-mandated six-story floor could eliminate those context-sensitive rules.

Several witnesses from Bozeman described the city’s recent development: a large amount of new housing, a roughly 10% vacancy rate in one speaker’s account, and continued concerns about affordability. David Fine, an economic development manager for Bozeman, said taller buildings tend to be built where land is expensive and that building higher often raises per-square-foot construction costs because of structural and fire-safety code requirements; he told committee members that “4 stories is the sweet spot” in many markets because it can be built using stick-frame construction.

Committee members asked whether increased height alone would produce affordable housing. Sponsor Senator [Senator Boldman] (identified in testimony as the bill sponsor) and proponents repeatedly said the bill was meant to increase supply and predictability for developers, not to impose affordability mandates; several committee members asked whether the sponsor would accept amendments tying additional height to affordability conditions, and the sponsor said she would be open to amendments.

The hearing included questions about infrastructure, with the sponsor noting language in the proposed bill that requires a “will-serve” letter for water and sewer from municipal providers for projects using increased heights. Proponents said denser infill generally reduces per-capita infrastructure footprint compared with large suburban sprawl.

The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during the hearing. The discussion highlighted a common theme across testimony: supporters argued that permitting taller construction in commercial cores could add units where demand already exists, while opponents argued that without affordability requirements the market response likely would not produce lower-cost housing for local workers.

The committee may consider amendments and additional data in follow-up work.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Local Government - Mar 20, 2025 16:15 - 19:15","oneSentenceSummary","Senators and representatives on the House Local Government Committee heard testimony for and against Senate Bill 243 on whether cities should be required to allow up to six-story buildings by right in commercial zones in larger Montana cities.","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},6628308,"Committee considers cleanup to Montana Land Use and Planning Act; supporters call it technical, some residents fear extraterritorial zoning",820,4637000,5457000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a&start=4637&end=5457","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a/thumbnail_4637000.jpg","/articles/6628308/Montana/Committee-considers-cleanup-to-Montana-Land-Use-and-Planning-Act-supporters-call-it-technical-some-residents-fear-extraterritorial-zoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628308-d4667eba8edb55e83da8c297b8399c14/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607734&Signature=TD-uRvnKvNYG1o-qV0PJTkEUCaK5vML2GVlEnsU9a1k7Z3pL~RQqi1~tHHLtCDCMvWANKBKy0CT-QiEz4zZ7Xa6X-1bbNKsorlEV0wIDjzKLxFO2oftDqMkEQXbT9PsM2gITT2hUbITzP2CAVsQgqppWzea2~-giqhIYWe-Dk2UqWiypiIvfLm-mw1g1Cn1q-MTIQsW9ES1SfrLZ5Bue8f3RXopVhCfj0DCU1qsgR~TatUuwzW9KJsuIPYFPFvssV-JHX3-4etCH762ZlWGAK02fGF0rZUa83RisZw6FI3qpbATy-pYBlNLmoT6ilCf1pqAt5cGrtvpFPBO55tCDDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 121 is a follow-up bill intended to clarify implementation details of the Montana Land Use and Planning Act (MALUPA), enacted last session. The sponsor and multiple municipal and planning organizations described the measure as technical cleanup to aid implementation of the earlier law.

Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, and representatives of planning and municipal associations said the bill corrects cross-references, restores a municipal facility exclusion, and clarifies rules about extraterritorial jurisdiction and how a city and county may interlocal-agree to extend municipal zoning or subdivision rules beyond city limits. Planners said the measure will help the communities that opted into MALUPA implement the statute’s planning and appeal provisions without upending local processes.

Proponents included Shelter Whitefish, the Montana Association of Realtors and the Montana Association of Planners, and municipal staff from Billings and other cities that are implementing MALUPA. They told the committee that most changes are “esoteric” drafting fixes requested by planners who are building the new procedures into local practice.

Opponents included a group called It’s My Land from Livingston, which said residents in Livingston’s two-mile extraterritorial zone (the “donut”) worry municipal authority could expand to apply zoning or subdivision rules without sufficient protections for property owners; the opponent said more clarity is needed to ensure that city-county interlocal agreements and local government structures preserve residents’ rights.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the bill would change the existing requirement that a county must agree to a city’s extraterritorial zoning in certain government forms; municipal witnesses said case law and current practice already give counties a deciding role and that the bill does not revoke county authority. Proponents said they are preparing small amendments to respond to a recent court order affecting MALUPA’s administrative-review language.

The committee did not take a final vote. Sponsors and planners said they will propose limited amendments to address a recent court ruling and to ensure the statute’s streamlined review provisions comply with the court’s decision.

","Senate Bill 121 would tidy implementation language in the Montana Land Use and Planning Act (MALUPA); planners and municipal officials called the changes necessary technical fixes, while some residents in extraterritorial zones raised concerns about potential expansion of municipal authority.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6628313,"Bill to exempt subdivisions from MEPA review draws sharp opposition over water concerns",1577,3049000,4626000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a&start=3049&end=4626","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a/thumbnail_3049000.jpg","/articles/6628313/Montana/Bill-to-exempt-subdivisions-from-MEPA-review-draws-sharp-opposition-over-water-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628313-14444038a094f04e29c5a41693b3685b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607734&Signature=CEae3WcAf8cNFZuvRGukJ0TiDA6sgMAf3ZmobKYEmUbpeh8D4S5d5ZUPcssqU2ZrFDzRzDg4dwjXGahvtBtVg5zulE19YXPJSSlz9OKkDhP1VeF6MZEIJj~zArryWBtRex-juTRGINWcUBjNrDweTu7TlmViXhPS3yvckUTFkLCkrVJ4XkBqdIVSLo9EGwAOMNcOjJa3UQ--rsR1mPI0tEMV1rcLVZFQpJq0WnvAXyfvw9Dga9sf5qdHXy9HZLofNU9w6XTv-muncIHV2qzHjSv8qfzs769XkzgZtclFd~GsUNBCzrMrrKHYCoQhvo1st~q5-ZB79uttYXfrRPLZlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 262, introduced by Sen. Forrest Mandeville, would remove certain subdivision reviews from the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirement that accompanies Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sanitation reviews. The sponsor said the change is meant to streamline DEQ review and lower time and cost burdens on subdivisions that already face local review and septic permitting.

Proponents included the Montana Building Industry Association, county planners and a Flathead County planning board chair, who said DEQ MEPA reviews add time and paperwork without changing final permit outcomes and that the bill would allow local and independent reviewers to process applications more efficiently. Jeff Larson, a civil engineer and Flathead County planning board chair, said the DEQ sanitary review currently duplicates extensive environmental review and that removing the MEPA checklist would free staff time and make independent review more feasible.

Opponents included the Montana Environmental Information Center, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and multiple private citizens who described wells that went dry and urged caution. Derf Johnson of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the sanitation review evaluates a single project’s non-significance criteria but does not substitute for a cumulative watershed analysis under MEPA; he warned the bill would “sectionalize” review and could miss cumulative impacts on aquifers and streams.

Several speakers described recent wells going dry in the Blackfoot Valley and other rural areas and said exempting subdivisions from MEPA could harm long-term water security for existing residents. Gary Aitken told the committee his and three neighbors’ wells went dry during a recent dry period and said the proposed exemption could leave long-term residents exposed to downstream consequences of new subdivisions.

DEQ staff testified in an informational capacity that DEQ’s current sanitation review focuses on physical water availability and sanitation design and that removal of MEPA would not eliminate sanitation design, septic permitting or some water-quality safeguards. Lindsey Krivaruchka, DEQ’s water quality division administrator, said the DEQ program is funded through state special revenue and that the agency would continue to review for physical availability and ensure water quality protections under current statutes.

Committee members probed potential public-participation impacts and legal risk. Opponents flagged Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment and warned that broad exemptions from MEPA could invite legal challenges. The sponsor said the bill does not remove local review or septic permitting and argued that MEPA adds time and cost for little gain on the projects that trigger sanitation review.

No final committee vote occurred during the hearing; members requested follow up and additional information on cumulative impacts and public-notice mechanisms.

","Senate Bill 262 would remove certain subdivision reviews from the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirement tied to DEQ sanitation reviews; supporters say it eliminates duplicative review, while opponents warn it could weaken cumulative watershed analysis and public participation.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6628296,"Committee executive action: several bills concurred, one tabled; proxies recorded",0,7554000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a&start=7554&end=7554","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a/thumbnail_7554000.jpg","/articles/6628296/Montana/Committee-executive-action-several-bills-concurred-one-tabled-proxies-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628296-60241bcf467c3b42e96fd9a8beeae436/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607734&Signature=JnILV3zdQxQIHfxe67Z35gE-q6TvbYU0OAtIc3LtqF0AedWW9fo1nxIgM~8K3CTGu7CFkDzsTkqWNcv3wzuFvKeEf~yHOAUbitIDnsINHOmR~-3VlRo25eT-3tmMCawuyjBsb0mV1awPYxIGqu7zbiWK-RVdr2F-YnPHbtMBiLRR8SQjHGrGY9vIO5HSEW3~cBAFe3wfKO7XLdEZ8ht29kGvfxyBl2x7eaxFNbpxxgYTW0DzsVuMWSzr7WGWtTG1eBdJNx-AH51EYid4zgnGgiktG0plAZMKGI9w-kwNG3p6orQ659ck1VDeCc~p3iOHbY3poUsERm8elu2uXJ9LyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Local Government Committee conducted executive action on several bills after hearings. The committee’s actions recorded in the transcript are summarized below.

- Senate Bill 5: The committee moved and the voice vote passed that the committee concur in Senate Bill 5. A carrier was later identified to shepherd the bill in the House.

- Senate Bill 96: A substitute motion to table Senate Bill 96 carried on a non-debatable voice vote; the committee recorded that the bill was temporarily set aside.

- Senate Bill 103: The committee considered and adopted an amendment increasing a fee (the transcript records a modest increase discussed during the executive action). The committee then voted to concur in SB 103 as amended; proxy votes were recorded for several members. The committee assigned a carrier to the bill.

- Senate Bill 213: The committee moved to concur; members discussed safety and building-exit concerns in the course of the executive action. A voice vote and proxies were recorded, and a carrier volunteered to carry the bill.

Transcript notes show a number of proxy votes recorded during the session. Specific proxy votes were announced on the record for several committee members during the roll calls on the items; the transcript does not contain a numerical roll-call tally for every bill but does record numerous “aye” proxy declarations. Committee chairs and members handled carriers and scheduling after action was taken.

These actions were taken during the evening executive session; the committee noted several follow-up items and carriers to move bills forward to the next legislative steps.

","During executive session the House Local Government Committee took action on multiple Senate bills. The committee moved to concur in several bills (Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 103 as amended, Senate Bill 213) and tabled Senate Bill 96. Proxy votes were recorded for several members; sponsors or committee members were assigned carriers.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6628301,"Committee hears bill to treat manufactured and factory-built homes like other residential housing",1468,5528000,6996000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a&start=5528&end=6996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2718399-ebf63fc15f694125c3f744a720f05e1a/thumbnail_5528000.jpg","/articles/6628301/Montana/Committee-hears-bill-to-treat-manufactured-and-factory-built-homes-like-other-residential-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628301-b28aaf5416474e8a2ff9037324e7b986/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607734&Signature=TgTOsdI3tdD0NlfssDz-iwuZJW1~ZK~qxurN8t1GC4aHdwoUqCv~Ssch0J5RBr7xWJXGf0t9lKu5NJPpGTo5R4qe~PBfyvZ~pXlwDHUqVAMqdYEdN51qA0h-ipGDW4AUjTuhJS1ZesGy7vwSKIGa0wqkUfdKd7NIhB~npOFShnF9d0cLxh9izCxEkoF9a4r77exdpuenUkY2RO3BgeWjYDxwb4Y9wmCMwOMhOOurPa9d8naXaPOgk6qZjzDaHPTFHiqkosTi1KVdmw-kle8xZ2tbxSBX6y~z707vN1DxhZ8zPIuYGcW4awxAxWkGRWBq27COEBbcaeXaJap9u88tSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators and representatives considered Senate Bill 252, which would clarify that manufactured homes and factory-built homes are residential uses that counties and municipalities may not treat differently from stick-built single-family homes in zoning and land-use decisions. The bill would also allow certain manufactured or factory-built housing products on state trust land leases where appropriate.

Supporters included manufactured-housing dealers and manufacturers, municipal officials, tribal representatives and housing advocates. Stewart Doggett, representing the Montana Manufactured Housing and RV Dealers Association, and Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish said the bill removes local barriers that can keep factory-built and manufactured homes out of residential neighborhoods. Proponents emphasized speed and cost advantages of factory-built housing and noted that factory-built homes can be less expensive per square foot than site-built housing.

Alyssa Snow, testifying for several tribes, said manufactured and factory-built homes are often the only affordable route to homeownership for many Native households and urged the committee to support the bill as a way to expand attainable options.

Municipal representatives, including the Montana League of Cities and Towns and the Montana Association of Planners, supported the bill as clarifying existing case law that prohibits differential treatment of different construction methods for residential uses.

DNRC (Department of Natural Resources and Conservation) staff testified that the department already has authority to lease trust lands for development and that the bill would not conflict with the department’s trust mandate; DNRC said the change would not require policy or authority changes but could enable more residential uses on trust lands where appropriate.

Witnesses discussed the 1976 HUD code distinction for manufactured homes and sought clarity about how the bill would treat factory-assembled structures and inspection requirements; bill proponents and municipal planners said they would work with the sponsor to ensure definitions and references to the state inspection statute (Title 50) were clear.

Committee members did not take a final vote. Supporters said the bill is one of several tools — including funding, low-interest loans and land-use policy changes — the legislature is using to expand housing options.

","Senate Bill 252 would clarify that manufactured homes and factory-built homes cannot be treated differently from stick-built homes for residential zoning and would expand allowable use on state trust lands. Industry groups, tribes and municipal groups supported the change as a tool to expand attainable housing options; no formal vote was taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee weighs bill to allow up to six-story buildings in commercial zones to boost housing supply

Committee considers cleanup to Montana Land Use and Planning Act; supporters call it technical, some residents fear extraterritorial zoning

Bill to exempt subdivisions from MEPA review draws sharp opposition over water concerns

Committee executive action: several bills concurred, one tabled; proxies recorded

Committee hears bill to treat manufactured and factory-built homes like other residential housing