Proposed Bylaws Changes

At the 2017 General Meeting, we hope to approve an update to BCPOA’s bylaws. The purpose of the update is very limited: to improve and clarify administration and procedures, and provide for innovations like electronic meeting participation. There is no intent to change the purpose of the organization or shift the balance of power between members and directors.

An introductory memo:

A clean draft of the proposed bylaws:

A redlined version, showing changes:

A summary table of changes:

The existing bylaws are here.

Public Meeting on Short Term Rentals, Jan 10

The Bridger Canyon Zoning Advisory Committee invites you to attend a community meeting to seek comments on regulation of short-term (vacation) rentals in the Bridger Canyon Zoning District on

January 10, 2017 from 6:30 – 8:00 PM

The meeting will be held at the Bridger Canyon Fire Station

8081 Bridger Canyon Road, Bozeman, MT.

For more information on community meeting please contact the

Gallatin County Planning Department at 406-582-3130.


Richard Lyon has prepared a thorough background document on the topic:


The summary refers to some draft language alternatives, which are here:


BCPOA previously surveyed opinion on this topic, summarized here:

Short Term Rental Survey

There’s some discussion of the issues in the comments on the subsequent post:

General Standards drafts & Sep. 12 2016 agenda

October 2016 P&Z Hearing

Thursday’s Planning & Zoning hearing is a big one, with three Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) on the agenda. (pz_10-13-2016agenda) Also, there will be a separate hearing for a septic variance associated with the Ivey Caretaker’s Residence CUP.

Baker CUP

This is a CUP for an accessory building in Aspen Meadow. BCPOA does not oppose; in fact we’re not certain why a CUP was required in this case.

Update: approved.


Lyon Guesthouse

This is a CUP for a guesthouse in Flaming Arrow.

Update: approved.


That in turn requires a modification of the PUD building envelope. BCPOA thinks PUD modifications must be approached with extreme caution, and must be judged by their net benefits to the public. In this case, the modification seems reasonable because it improves clustering and reduces visibility, without harming other resources like wildlife. BCPOA does not oppose, provided that neighbors and the HOA are also amenable.


Simmons PUD


This application is for a Planned Unit Development that subdivides a 40 acre parcel into three (a 2-dwelling density bonus). The site is east of the controversial Theken barn and the Brass Lantern subdivision below the M. BCPOA has concerns with the proposed siting and other features of the plan, and is working with the applicant in the hope of improving it.

Update: denied.



Staff Report



BCPOA testimony


Petition for Speed Limit on Kelly Canyon

The following is a link to a petition to establish a speed limit on Kelly Canyon. It turns out that the speed limit on an unposted road defaults to 70 mph, which is obviously not compatible with the road’s design and recreational traffic mix.


This petition would go to the County Commission; if they approve (which is apparently likely), they’d direct an engineer to assess the road and establish a limit.

If you agree, please sign!

The county’s speed limit procedures are documented here.

2016 General Meeting

We had a great General Meeting, with over 40 members in attendance. Presentation slides are here:

BCPOA general mtg 2016

Bridger Canyon Zoning Updates Excerpts General Meeting 2016

I’d like to thank our board for another year of service (many years, in some cases). It’s great to work with smart, nice people who love Bridger Canyon: Sharon Erickson, Deb Stratford, Mitch Miller, Chuck Broughton, Fred Leopold, John Sackett, Richard Lyon, Drew Seessel, Gary Sager, Kent Madin, Phil Cory, and Kelly Wiseman. A hearty welcome to Mike Smith, who’s joining us.

Caretaker’s Residence CUP

The May 12th Planning & Zoning Commission considered a Conditional Use Permit for a Caretaker’s Residence. BCPOA opposed the application. Our central argument was that, regardless of the merits of caretaker’s residences, the zoning regulation defines them as dwelling units, and the general plan requires 1-in-40 density for dwelling units. Therefore a caretaker’s residence requires density, and cannot be granted on a small parcel. (Read the testimony below for a more comprehensive picture.)

The commission rejected this and the rest of our arguments, relying on precedent, because caretaker’s residences have been approved on other parcels without regard for density (often over BCPOA’s objections), and the merits of caretaker’s residences for convenience and security, as perceived in Big Sky. Precedent cannot have been the primary issue, because the commission declined to include a condition prohibiting separate sale and rental, which has been applied consistently in the past.

The commission has not yet issued a written decision.

BCPOA written testimony: BCPOA Ivey CUP
Staff report: WV_IveyCUP
Supporting document: Ivey_CUP_Additional_Info