Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears cleanup bill for Montana Land Use Planning Act; supporters say fixes are technical
Summary
SB 121 is a cleanup to the Montana Land Use Planning Act implementing technical clarifications on definitions, public notice, annexation and extraterritorial jurisdiction; supporters including city planners and the League of Cities and Towns called the changes necessary to continue implementation, while some rural/ETJ residents voiced concerns about annexation authority.
Senator Forrest Mandeville presented SB 121 as a cleanup to the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MALUPA) enacted last session. He said the bill adds definitions (including "development application"), clarifies public notice language, requires a land‑use plan before annexation, refines cross references to extraterritorial jurisdiction and preserves existing planning boards in communities that wish to continue them.
Supporters included Kelly Lynch of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, planners and municipal staff who described much of the bill as "wonky" but necessary technical fixes to enable implementation of MALUPA statutes. Jake Brown (Shelter Whitefish) and the Montana Association of Realtors also supported the cleanup, and city planning directors such as Wyeth Friday (Billings) said the bill helps with implementation and addresses issues identified by planners.
Opponents and participants from certain extraterritorial jurisdictions said they fear expanded municipal authority to zone or subdivide areas outside city boundaries without adequate local protections; Leslie Figel of It’s My Land and other ETJ residents urged the committee to ensure counties retain control and that local preferences are respected. The sponsor and supporters said the bill does not change county authority to allow extraterritorial zoning and that interlocal agreements and planning board structures remain necessary.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about extraterritorial jurisdiction, interlocal agreements, and recent court orders that affected parts of MALUPA implementation. Supporters said amendments would be filed to address the court order and ensure the streamlining goals remain consistent with the court's directions. The committee closed the hearing on SB 121.
