Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would force building departments to cite code sections within seven business days or risk waiving them; cities and AIA warn of safety, liability concerns
Summary
House Bill 427 would let builders request the specific building‑code citation that prompted a stop‑work order or permitted‑issuance delay and would waive compliance with the cited sections if the authority fails to respond within seven business days. Opponents said the waiver clause is too broad and risks public safety and litigation; sponsors and opponents were urged to negotiate precise definitions and alternatives (daily penalties, limited waiver scope).
Representative Katie Zolnikoff opened the hearing on House Bill 427, which would allow a builder or developer who receives a stop‑work order or who experiences a delay in permit issuance to request within seven business days that the issuing authority identify the specific sections of the building code relied upon. If the authority does not provide the requested citations within that period, the bill as drafted would waive application of those cited sections to the permit application or construction process.
Opponents included the Montana chapter of the American Institute of Architects (Daryl James), the cities of Missoula and Bozeman (Danny Hess), and the Montana League of Cities and Towns (Jennifer Olson). They supported improved communication but argued subsection 3 (the waiver provision) is vague and could unintentionally waive life‑safety code requirements or lead to broad litigation over liability when post‑construction issues arise. Daryl James said the bill "does not specify what kind of code could be waived," and warned that waiving unspecified sections could threaten occupant and responder safety.
Local governments described complex, multi‑step development reviews in which permit and subdivision processes run in parallel; they said an application may legitimately require multiple follow‑ups (engineering drawings, additional inspections) and that a single‑day or seven‑business‑day clock could be ambiguous without a clear definition of "delay." Several witnesses offered alternative approaches — daily fines or administrative penalties for failure to respond, clearer definitions of a "delay," and limiting any waiver so it cannot apply to life‑safety provisions.
Next steps: Committee members encouraged the sponsor to work with opponents and DLI on amendments to define "delay," limit any waiver to non‑life‑safety items, or adopt enforceable administrative penalties as an alternative; the hearing remained open to amendment discussions.
