Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to interpret zoning ambiguities in favor of property owners draws praise and preservation pushback
Summary
Sen. Greg Hertz sponsored SB 214 to require ambiguous zoning provisions be interpreted in favor of nonconforming uses; proponents said the bill protects property rights and local homeowners relying on uses such as short-term rentals, while Preserve Montana and others warned it removes review authority from local historic preservation boards.
Sen. Greg Hertz told the Local Government Committee that Senate Bill 214 would clarify how zoning ambiguities should be resolved: when it is unclear whether a use is permitted, the ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of allowing the nonconforming use rather than prohibiting it. He said the bill is aimed at preventing reinterpretations of long-standing property uses that can leave owners exposed.
"This bill clarifies what the Montana Supreme Court had said for years that in those cases where there's an ambiguity, you should on the side of permitting the use and allowing property owners to make the use of their property," Hertz told the committee.
Proponents included homeowners and property-rights groups who said the measure would protect long-established uses such as short-term rentals and on-property storage that were commonly in place before counties reinterpreted zoning. Wendy Dixon described buying a vacation home under assurances that renting the single-family dwelling was allowed and said she now faces a changed interpretation. "Before we purchased, Gallatin County officials assured us that renting a single family dwelling for any duration was allowed," Dixon said.
Other supporters, including the Frontier Institute and local vacation-rental operators, framed the bill as restoring predictable property rights and reducing litigation.
Opponents included Preserve Montana, which said the bill as drafted removes authority for local historic preservation boards to review permit or variance applications that affect listed historic properties. Jenny Buddenborg, executive director of Preserve Montana, urged the committee to oppose the bill or restore language that preserves local review when historic-designation protections are at stake.
Committee members questioned the sponsor about removal of historic-board authority and sought clarifications about nuisance law, abandonment, and how the bill would treat existing businesses that are incompatible with neighborhoods. The sponsor said nuisance laws and abandonment standards remain separate enforcement tools and defended the bill as limited to interpretation of ambiguous zoning provisions, not a blanket immunity for objectionable uses.
Next steps: The committee closed public testimony on SB 214; it will consider the measure further in committee action.
