Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-608

(2011)

Criteria for local government review

(1) The basis for the governing body's decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a proposed subdivision is whether the subdivision application, preliminary plat, applicable environmental assessment, public hearing, planning board recommendations, or additional information demonstrates that development of the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of this chapter. A governing body may not deny approval of a proposed subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts on educational services or based solely on parcels within the subdivision having been designated as wildland-urban interface parcels under 76-13-145.

(2) The governing body shall issue written findings of fact that weigh the criteria in subsection (3), as applicable.

(3) A subdivision proposal must undergo review for the following primary criteria:

(a) except when the governing body has established an exemption pursuant to subsection (6) of this section or except as provided in 76-3-509, 76-3-609(2) or (4), or 76-3-616, the impact on agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety;

(b) compliance with:

(i) the survey requirements provided for in part 4 of this chapter;

(ii) the local subdivision regulations provided for in part 5 of this chapter; and

(iii) the local subdivision review procedure provided for in this part;

(c) the provision of easements within and to the proposed subdivision for the location and installation of any planned utilities; and

(d) the provision of legal and physical access to each parcel within the proposed subdivision and the required notation of that access on the applicable plat and any instrument of transfer concerning the parcel.

(4) The governing body may require the subdivider to design the proposed subdivision to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts identified through the review required under subsection (3). The governing body shall issue written findings to justify the reasonable mitigation required under this subsection (4).

(5) (a) In reviewing a proposed subdivision under subsection (3) and when requiring mitigation under subsection (4), a governing body may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop land, but it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the subdivision.

(b) When requiring mitigation under subsection (4), a governing body shall consult with the subdivider and shall give due weight and consideration to the expressed preference of the subdivider.

(6) A governing body may conditionally approve or deny a proposed subdivision as a result of the water and sanitation information provided pursuant to 76-3-622 or public comment received pursuant to 76-3-604 on the information provided pursuant to 76-3-622 only if the conditional approval or denial is based on existing subdivision, zoning, or other regulations that the governing body has the authority to enforce.

(7) A governing body may not require as a condition of subdivision approval that a property owner waive a right to protest the creation of a special improvement district or a rural improvement district for capital improvement projects that does not identify the specific capital improvements for which protest is being waived. A waiver of a right to protest may not be valid for a time period longer than 20 years after the date that the final subdivision plat is filed with the county clerk and recorder.

Opinions construing this section

9 opinions
2010 MT 274 Dec 21, 2010 Affirmed
MM&I v. Gallatin Co. Commissioners
Majority by James C. Nelson · 5 to 0
of MM&I’s subdivision application was not arbitrary and capricious. ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in ruling that the Commission did not violate § 76-3-608(5)(b), MCA. Factual and Procedural Background ¶6 In the fall of 2002, MM&I applied for preliminary plat approval of the Riverfront Park Subdivision consisting of 143 s
2010 MT 79 Apr 14, 2010 Affirmed
Aspen Trails v. Helena City Commissioners
Majority by Patricia Cotter · 4 to 1 with 2 concurring
t the MSPA required the Commission to consider the subdivision application, the preliminary plat, the EA, public hearing, and **planning board recommendations. Section 76-3-608(1), MCA. Section 76-3-603(1), MCA, requires the EA to contain information including: (a) a description of every body or stream of surface water that may be affected by
2009 MT 182 May 22, 2009 Reversed
Citizens v. Sanders Co. Commissioners
Majority by Jim Rice · 5 to 0
view a subdivision proposal for “the impact on . . . local services, the natural environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and public health and safety.” Section 76-3-608(3)(a), MCA. ¶13 Section 76-3-604, MCA, establishes procedures for a governing body’s acceptance and review of a subdivision application. Section 76-3-604(1), MCA, r
2007 MT 118 May 22, 2007 Affirmed in part, reversed in part
Fielder v. Sanders County Bocc
Majority by Brian Morris · 5 to 0
Attorney General’s opinion addressed the question of when a proposed subdivision must undergo review to show compliance with local subdivision regulations. Section 76-3-608, MCA (2003), provides that preliminary plat review is designed to ensure compliance with local and state subdivision regulations. A governing body may 10 condit
Official Annotations archive.org, 2011 edition
History:
En. Sec. 8, Ch. 500, L. 1973
Amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 334, L. 1974
Amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 498, L. 1975
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 555, L. 1977
R.C.M. 1947, 11-3866(4)
Amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 272, L. 1993
Amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 468, L. 1995
Amd. Sec. 26, Ch. 582, L. 1999 (SB 97 - Stang, Spook (D) SD 36)
Amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 348, L. 2001 (SB 479 - Hargrove, Don (R) SD 16)
Amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 298, L. 2005 (SB 116 - Laible, Rick (R) SD 44)
Amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 302, L. 2005 (SB 290 - Mangan, Jeff (D) SD 12)
Amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 455, L. 2007 (SB 201 - Laible, Rick (R) SD 44)
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 406, L. 2009 (SB 310 - Shockley, Jim (R) SD 45)
Amd. Sec. 17, Ch. 446, L. 2009 (HB 486 - MacLaren, Gary (R) HD 89)
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 409, L. 2011 (SB 298 - Vincent, Chas (R) SD 1)