Proposal to Let Counties Terminate Citizen‑Initiated Zoning Draws Strong Opposition in Senate Committee

Representative Greg Overstreet introduced House Bill 614 to give county commissions a statutory pathway to terminate citizen‑initiated part‑1 or part‑2 zoning districts if the county adopts a larger zoning district covering the same land or opts into the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA). Overstreet said the authority would be exercised through public notice and hearings and is voluntary for counties.

Supporters, led by Sean O'Callaghan of the Montana Association of Planners, argued the law addresses a patchwork of overlapping local zoning rules that create significant administrative burdens. O'Callaghan cited county counts of existing districts — Ravalli (44), Gallatin (22), Lewis and Clark (37) and Missoula (31) — and said some counties face dozens of separate regulations that must be amended after legislative changes. "One solution would be for counties to combine some or all of their existing zoning districts," he told the committee, urging a do‑pass recommendation while emphasizing required notice and public hearings.

Opponents — including the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, county commissioners and many residents from Spring Hill and Bridger Canyon — described HB 614 as a threat to due process and property rights. Matt Elsasser, deputy director of Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, said the measure "is a threat to due process, public notice, and participation in property rights." Multiple residents said they moved to their communities because of zoning protections and feared losing the ability to control land uses that affect wildfire risk, water resources and property values. "This bill would allow the city or county commission to terminate an existing zoning district without public vote," Deanna Campbell said, calling that outcome "bureaucratic overreach." Several witnesses urged amendments that would preserve a referendum or a protest mechanism as the final decision.

During questions, senators pressed proponents on which districts might be affected and whether the bill would actually reach active citizen districts. O'Callaghan acknowledged that active districts such as Spring Hill and Bridger Canyon "are susceptible" if their county chooses to pursue consolidation, but stressed that the bill includes procedures for notice, hearings and public participation. Committee members asked about the three‑year prohibition on bringing a new petition after a failed referendum; proponents said the language aligns part‑1 and part‑2 procedures to make them consistent.

Representative Overstreet closed by urging the committee to view the bill as a tool counties may choose to use, saying, "if there were lots of opposition... I would assume the county commissioners would be unlikely to do so." The committee took no executive action at the hearing.

The next steps for HB 614 are committee consideration for executive action and potential amendments; proponents and opponents both signaled interest in added protest or referendum safeguards.