Senate panel hears hours of testimony on bill that would favor property owners in ambiguous zoning cases

Sen. Greg Hertz introduced legislation, Senate Bill 214, that would add a presumption in Montana law favoring the "free use of property" when a zoning use is nonconforming or ambiguous, a change supporters say would protect longtime owners from abrupt reinterpretations by local officials.

Supporters told the Senate Local Government Committee that local governments in places such as Bridger Canyon and around Flathead Lake have recently reinterpreted zoning rules to prohibit uses—especially short-term rentals—that owners say existed for decades. Kendall Cotton, president and CEO of the Frontier Institute, urged the committee to adopt the bill to restore the ordinary legal principle that conduct is permitted unless expressly prohibited in law. "If Montanans have a fundamental right to use their property, that means the rule should be that you can use your property unless it's explicitly specifically prohibited," he said.

The bill drew a long line of proponents who described personal and economic harms. Linda Muret, who said her family has operated a ranch and rented a cabin to cover taxes, told senators a county reinterpretation cost her family "over $25,000" and threatened the ranch's viability. Jenapoire "Jenny" Nielsen of Missoula described running a bed-and-breakfast as an essential livelihood and asked lawmakers to protect owner-operated rentals that allow people to remain in their homes as they age.

Opponents voiced concern that the measure as drafted would create new ambiguity and unintended consequences. Laura Collins of the Montana Environmental Information Center said Montana law already grandfathered existing nonconforming uses and questioned how the bill's new phrasing—introducing terms such as "prior" alongside "existing"—would be interpreted in practice. "I wonder how ambiguity will be determined and who is to determine that," she told the committee. Several local-government and planning groups, including the Montana Association of Planners and the Montana League of Cities and Towns, urged targeted fixes rather than a broad statewide change.

Historic-preservation advocates said one provision in SB214 would remove local historic-preservation boards' authority to review permits or variances affecting designated historic properties. Jenny Budenborg, executive director of Preserve Montana, warned this change could weaken local stewardship and jeopardize access to preservation funding tied to federal programs: "SB214 endangers the historic integrity, character, and viability of hundreds of historic buildings and districts in Montana," she said.

Committee members pressed both sides about narrower options and possible amendments. Several senators asked whether terms in the draft—"ambiguity," "existing," and "prior"—could be tightened and whether the historic-preservation exemption could be restored. Senator Hertz said he would work with opponents on clarifying amendments and emphasized the bill's intent to provide "crystal clear" language that protects long-standing property uses statewide.

What happens next: The sponsor and committee members signaled a willingness to pursue amendments to narrow the bill's scope, particularly to preserve historic-preservation review where appropriate. The committee concluded the SB214 hearing after multiple hours of testimony and questioning.