Gallatin City planners withdraw proposal for temporary rezoning moratorium after commission concern

Gallatin City Planning Department staff proposed, then withdrew, a draft ordinance that would temporarily stop accepting rezoning applications while the city adopts a new zoning code.

Planning Department staff told the Gallatin City Planning Commission that the city is rewriting its zoning code and that the adoption process will reclassify every parcel inside city limits into a new set of districts (examples cited included converting an existing agricultural zone into a comparable CD2A district). Staff said applications that are submitted and accepted as complete are reviewed under the current code, which can create conflicts if the new code is adopted before pending rezoning cases are decided. To avoid such conflicts, staff proposed a time-limited moratorium on new rezoning applications — initially suggested as up to nine months, with language to terminate the moratorium early if the new code is adopted sooner — and said the city—s legal department had identified case law supporting this approach in similar circumstances.

Commissioners raised several concerns. Multiple members said the term "moratorium" carries a negative connotation that could discourage investment and be misread by the public as an overall halt to development. Commissioners also questioned the length of the proposed period (staff offered nine months as an estimate and said it built in three months each for Planning Commission review, City Council review, plus an extra three months). Several commissioners suggested shorter durations (one proposed six months) or alternative approaches such as temporarily pausing acceptance of straight rezoning requests while allowing planned mixed-development plans (PMDPs) and other applications that establish their own development standards to proceed. Staff acknowledged that applications already accepted would still be processed under the current code and said the moratorium would not apply to development requests that do not require rezoning or to amendments tied to an adopted master plan.

Planning Department staff gave scheduling context: staff expects to have a final draft of the new zoning ordinance returned to staff by approximately the end of next month (a guesstimate), is working through a Gregory annexation with a calendar date of Nov. 18 for finalizing that annexation, and said a normal adoption schedule for a moratorium ordinance would point toward a Dec. 2 adoption hearing if the moratorium were pursued. Staff also said many rezoning submittals are PMDPs (project master development plans) that carry their own bulk and zoning rules and would largely convert to comparable districts (for example, PMDPs would be mapped to EPD in the new code), minimizing conflicts.

After extensive discussion about legal defensibility, public perception, incentives for timely code adoption and impacts on investment, planning staff announced it would "withdraw the request to try to do it" and not press the moratorium forward at this time. No ordinance vote was taken.

The commission requested further coordination between staff and council and discussed non-legislative alternatives such as clearer application disclaimers, better public communications about the transition, or a voluntary applicant commitment process (staff said enforcing a voluntary commitment to an unadopted future zoning assignment is not feasible because the future regulations are not yet final). Staff said it remains open to revisiting the idea if circumstances change and that any formal moratorium would follow the same procedure as rezonings (Planning Commission recommendation followed by City Council action).