Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land-use bill limits 'sensitive lands' criteria in county growth policies; local governments and conservation groups oppose
Summary
House Bill 889 would restrict counties from including subjective 'sensitive lands' criteria (aesthetics, visibility, traditional use) in growth policies outside city limits. Proponents argued for private-property protections; local governments, planners and conservation groups warned it would override local planning and undercut protections for wildlife, flooding and wildfire risk.
Representative Jedidiah Hinkle told the committee HB889 is intended to prevent subjective or aesthetic designations from becoming de facto land‑use restrictions that can limit property owners’ future options. "Sensitive land designation is very broad and vague," Hinkle said, describing cases where growth plans or future land‑use maps could effectively prevent development based on aesthetic judgments.
Proponents—ranchers, rural residents and local landowners—told the panel the bill would protect private property rights and require measurable standards where counties regulate land outside city limits. Tom Burnett, testifying in favor, warned that some proposed sensitive‑lands categories (visibility from roads, 'heritage') are subjective enough to freeze land use.
Opponents included county commissioners, planning directors, the Montana League of Cities and Towns, conservation organizations and Montana Audubon. They argued HB889 would usurp locally elected decision‑making, force expensive revisions to recently adopted growth policies, and limit the use of planning tools for wildfire, flood, riparian, wildlife-corridor and agricultural-protection goals. Jennifer Boyer, Gallatin County commissioner, and Karen Hughes, Missoula County planning director, said their communities conducted years of public outreach to adopt plans tailored to local conditions and cautioned the bill would create conflict with existing MCA land‑use statutes.
Committee debate reflected the split: some members said the bill addresses instances of spot zoning or subjective designations that harm landowners; others said it would overturn careful local planning and exchange local input for statewide rules. The committee voted to pass HB889 in executive action; the bill will proceed out of committee with the record showing strong, divided testimony.
