Several land-use, gravel bills still alive

With seven weeks left in the session, a number of major land-use bills are still alive in the 2007 Legislature.

One of the bills would make it harder to prohibit new gravel pits. Others would affect the family transfer exemption, impose tougher standards on neighborhood plans, amend the subdivision requirements for parkland and wildland fire mitigation, and allow impact fees for school infrastructure.

Details on the above bills include:

House Bill 557 - The Senate Natural Resources Committee will hold a public hearing on this bill Wednesday at 3 p.m.

If approved, the bill would allow new gravel pits, asphalt and concrete plants to be prohibited only in areas that are zoned as residential - and that are taxed as Class 4 property.

This essentially means that new mines could be proposed on any agricultural lands, large parcels of 20 to 160 acres that are considered nonproductive agricultural land, forest lands of at least 15 acres, and a variety of industrial properties, regardless of the surrounding zoning. Local governments could not prevent mines from being built in these areas, although they could impose reasonable conditions on their operation.

The bill was written specifically in response to the situation in Flathead County, where county commissioners declared that, for the purposes of regulating gravel pits, any zoning district qualifies as a residential district as long as it allows homes as a permitted use.

That decision infuriated the Montana Contractors Association, in part because it dramatically expanded the number of areas where new gravel pits could be prohibited and partly because it seemed to go beyond the intent of a 2005 bill that was intended to resolve gravel-pit disputes.

The Montana House approved HB 557 on a 53-46 vote.

House Bill 425 - This bill would give local governments the authority to restrict, for up to two years, the sale of lots created by family transfer.

This was a hot issue in Flathead County last year when the commissioners considered a proposal to crack down on abuses of the family transfer exemption.

The intent of the exemption is to let landowners split part of their property into lots for immediate family members. Some owners and surveyors, however, use the exemption to create lots they intend to sell, thereby avoiding the time and expense of public subdivision review.

Records from the county plat room, for example, indicate that more than half of the lots created here through family transfer end up being sold to non-family members within a year or two. Two-thirds are sold within three or four years.

HB 425 would allow local governments to impose a two-year waiting period on such sales. The waiting period could be waived for circumstances beyond the landowner's control, such as death, serious illness or bankruptcy.

The bill was approved in the House on a 57-42 vote.

House Bill 590 - This bill would guarantee property owners the right to do whatever they want with their property, as long as they cause no harm. It also would impose new standards for neighborhood plans, requiring that they be supported by 60 percent of the property owners and 50 percent of the acreage involved in the proposed planning jurisdiction before they can be considered by the local governing body.

The Montana Association of Planners opposes the bill, primarily because of the way the property rights definition is written.

"We see a great possibility of litigation coming from this," Andrew Finch, past president of the association, said in a February interview. "It's difficult to understand how local governments can 'guarantee' a land use without first considering the impact on the surrounding community. The word 'harm' also isn't defined. I can see copious litigation stemming from that."

The bill, introduced by Rep. George Everett, R-Helena Flats, squeaked through the House on a 52-47 vote.

Everett said the legislation was needed to protect property owners from over-eager neighbors and from unnecessarily restrictive regulations.

"People ought to be able to do certain things with their property, as long as they don't cause harm to their neighbors," he said. "State law indicates property owners have certain rights, but it never defines them."

House Bill 415 - Unlike major subdivisions, which create six or more lots, minor subdivisions currently don't have to set aside any land for parks or provide a cash payment in lieu of parkland.

This bill would give local governments the option of requiring parkland dedication for minor subdivisions.

Senate Bill 51 - This bill would amend the growth policy and subdivisions statutes, requiring local governments to evaluate the potential for wildland fires within their jurisdiction and, if necessary, develop regulations to address this issue.

The regulations could deal with defensible space requirements, access, adequate water supply and other measures that would mitigate the danger.

The bill also mandates that, by Oct. 1, 2008, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation develop rules dealing with the wildland-urban interface, including best management practices and approved construction techniques intended to minimize the danger of building in fire hazard areas.

Senate Bill 508 - In specific situations, state law allows local governments to require developers to pay for new capital facilities, such as roads or sewer lines. However, it specifically exempts developers from paying for new schools. This bill would eliminate that exemption.

Information about the status of these and any other bills, as well as hearing schedules and outcomes of any votes, can be found on the Montana Legislature's Web site, at http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com