In person testimony given during hearing by Tim Worley:
"Missoula County does not support SB 158 in its current form, and we would like to offer two amendments to the bill. First, our preference is to eliminate the allowance to create parcels of 5 acres when the zoning has a larger minimum lot size. Some areas of our county have larger minimum lot sizes based on things like severe wildfire hazard, excessive slopes, floodplain, meager infrastructure, and substantial distance from service providers. This zoning exception potentially places rural citizens at risk. The current zoning safeguards for exemptions in the Statute protect public health and safety.
Second, we believe that parcels created through family transfer within a subdivision should be subject to the restrictions/requirements of that subdivision. Otherwise, a two-tiered system would operate within the boundaries of the original subdivision. An example would be a private road maintenance agreement, which should include all subdivision residents. Otherwise, the rights and responsibilities of those living within the subdivision could be circumvented within the family transfer lots, creating inequity between neighbors. In order to put all subdivision residents on an equal footing, we recommend adding the following language to the bill: “A restriction or requirement on the original platted lot or original unplatted parcel continues to apply to those areas.”
Missoula County opposes SB 158, Revise family transfer laws, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon. Specifically, we oppose the proposed amendments to 76-3-207 (2) (c) a division of land exempted under subsection (1)(b) that is also located in a zoning district is allowed if each family transfer parcel created by the division is at least 5 acres, unless the zoning district allows for smaller lot sizes.
Under current law, any jurisdiction can choose to exempt family transfer parcels from any zoning requirements, but none do that we are aware of. This is because equal treatment is a basic right in our constitution and a foundational principle of zoning. This amendment would codify unequal treatment of property owners, where one property owner has rights not conveyed to another solely because of the method of division provided to them. This undermines the basic tenants of zoning, including, most prominently, public health and safety. Family transfers in zoned areas rarely are concerning or problematic because they must meet zoning requirements. If this bill becomes law, family transfers would be exempt from public health and safety considerations in subdivision review and also in zoning. We need to address our rising housing costs, but as the sixth-fastest growing state in the country, we cannot do so at the expense of public health and safety.
Missoula County opposes SB 158, Revise family transfer laws, up for hearing in Local Government on Tuesday. Specifically, we oppose the changes to 76-3-207 (2) (c) a division of land exempted under subsection (1)(b) that is also located in a zoning district is allowed if each family transfer parcel created by the division is at least 5 acres, unless the zoning district allows for smaller lot sizes.
Under current law, any jurisdiction can choose to exempt family transfer parcels from any zoning requirements, but none do that we are aware of. This is because equal treatment is a basic right in our constitution and a foundational principle of zoning. This bill would codify unequal treatment of property owners, where one property owner has rights not conveyed to another solely because of the method of division provided to them. This undermines the basic tenants of zoning, including, most prominently, public health and safety. Family transfers in zoned areas rarely are concerning or problematic because they must meet zoning requirements. If this bill becomes law, family transfers would be exempt from public health and safety considerations in subdivision review and also in zoning. We need to address our rising housing costs, but as the sixth-fastest growing state in the country, we cannot do so at the expense of public health and safety.
Missoula County opposes SB 158. The Family Transfer provision in State Law is a great way to gift an immediate family member a parcel from an existing ownership. The current sideboards for Family Transfers make sense, including the requirement to meet existing zoning. This Senate Bill bypasses zoning requirements (down to five acres) in areas that have larger minimum lot sizes; these larger minimum lot sizes exist for good reason – lack of basic services, floodplains, remote areas, high wildfire hazard zones, etc. We believe the existing law works, and allows zoning to address basic public health and safety. Please leave the law as it is. We urge do not pass on SB 158.
Missoula County opposes SB 158: Revise family transfer law, up for second reading on the House floor this afternoon. The Family Transfer provision in State Law is a great way to gift an immediate family member a parcel from an existing ownership. The current sideboards for Family Transfers make sense, including the requirement to meet existing zoning. This bill bypasses zoning requirements (down to five acres) in areas that have larger minimum lot sizes. These larger minimum lot sizes exist for good reason – lack of basic services, floodplains, remote areas, high wildfire hazard zones, etc. We believe the existing law works and allows zoning to address basic public health and safety.
In person testimony given during hearing by Tim Worley:
ReplyDelete"Missoula County does not support SB 158 in its current form, and we would like to offer two amendments to the bill. First, our preference is to eliminate the allowance to create parcels of 5 acres when the zoning has a larger minimum lot size. Some areas of our county have larger minimum lot sizes based on things like severe wildfire hazard, excessive slopes, floodplain, meager infrastructure, and substantial distance from service providers. This zoning exception potentially places rural citizens at risk. The current zoning safeguards for exemptions in the Statute protect public health and safety.
Second, we believe that parcels created through family transfer within a subdivision should be subject to the restrictions/requirements of that subdivision. Otherwise, a two-tiered system would operate within the boundaries of the original subdivision. An example would be a private road maintenance agreement, which should include all subdivision residents. Otherwise, the rights and responsibilities of those living within the subdivision could be circumvented within the family transfer lots, creating inequity between neighbors. In order to put all subdivision residents on an equal footing, we recommend adding the following language to the bill: “A restriction or requirement on the original platted lot or original unplatted parcel continues to apply to those areas.”
Senators,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 158, Revise family transfer laws, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon. Specifically, we oppose the proposed amendments to 76-3-207 (2) (c) a division of land exempted under subsection (1)(b) that is also located in a zoning district is allowed if each family transfer parcel created by the division is at least 5 acres, unless the zoning district allows for smaller lot sizes.
Under current law, any jurisdiction can choose to exempt family transfer parcels from any zoning requirements, but none do that we are aware of. This is because equal treatment is a basic right in our constitution and a foundational principle of zoning. This amendment would codify unequal treatment of property owners, where one property owner has rights not conveyed to another solely because of the method of division provided to them. This undermines the basic tenants of zoning, including, most prominently, public health and safety. Family transfers in zoned areas rarely are concerning or problematic because they must meet zoning requirements. If this bill becomes law, family transfers would be exempt from public health and safety considerations in subdivision review and also in zoning. We need to address our rising housing costs, but as the sixth-fastest growing state in the country, we cannot do so at the expense of public health and safety.
Please oppose SB 158.
Representative Thane,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 158, Revise family transfer laws, up for hearing in Local Government on Tuesday. Specifically, we oppose the changes to 76-3-207 (2) (c) a division of land exempted under subsection (1)(b) that is also located in a zoning district is allowed if each family transfer parcel created by the division is at least 5 acres, unless the zoning district allows for smaller lot sizes.
Under current law, any jurisdiction can choose to exempt family transfer parcels from any zoning requirements, but none do that we are aware of. This is because equal treatment is a basic right in our constitution and a foundational principle of zoning. This bill would codify unequal treatment of property owners, where one property owner has rights not conveyed to another solely because of the method of division provided to them. This undermines the basic tenants of zoning, including, most prominently, public health and safety. Family transfers in zoned areas rarely are concerning or problematic because they must meet zoning requirements. If this bill becomes law, family transfers would be exempt from public health and safety considerations in subdivision review and also in zoning. We need to address our rising housing costs, but as the sixth-fastest growing state in the country, we cannot do so at the expense of public health and safety.
Please oppose SB 158.
In person testimony by Tim Worley:
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 158. The Family Transfer provision in State Law is a great way to gift an immediate family member a parcel from an existing ownership. The current sideboards for Family Transfers make sense, including the requirement to meet existing zoning. This Senate Bill bypasses zoning requirements (down to five acres) in areas that have larger minimum lot sizes; these larger minimum lot sizes exist for good reason – lack of basic services, floodplains, remote areas, high wildfire hazard zones, etc. We believe the existing law works, and allows zoning to address basic public health and safety. Please leave the law as it is. We urge do not pass on SB 158.
Representatives,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 158: Revise family transfer law, up for second reading on the House floor this afternoon. The Family Transfer provision in State Law is a great way to gift an immediate family member a parcel from an existing ownership. The current sideboards for Family Transfers make sense, including the requirement to meet existing zoning. This bill bypasses zoning requirements (down to five acres) in areas that have larger minimum lot sizes. These larger minimum lot sizes exist for good reason – lack of basic services, floodplains, remote areas, high wildfire hazard zones, etc. We believe the existing law works and allows zoning to address basic public health and safety.
Please oppose SB 158.