Thank you all who responded by email or on our survey form. I’ve posted responses as of 4/6/2010 here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tFXvv9Szp2ftATRDioInxcQ&single=true&gid=1&output=html

Briefly, the responses are overwhelmingly in favor of strong zoning enforcement. At least 90% of responses said something like,

• “We must insist that the county follow the rules.  It is not fair to property owners to allow violations that can obstruct our valuable views and reduce the value of our properties.”
• “Although I would like to be lenient, the problem is that each infringement sets a precedence that creates a new standard. … I see no practical possibility of selectively enforcing the ordinances.”
• “We have to be aggressive, or we might as well just forget the zoning.”

Many identified a teardown as the appropriate response. Several suggested legal action against the county if the enforcement response was inadequate.

Two responses expressed ambivalence about enforcement and enthusiasm for barns, as in:

• “We can’t help but feel that it’s a sad commentary when barns are this controversial in Montana. We have never felt that a barn detracted from the landscape and if this was to actually be a barn in the traditional sense, it seems wrong to deny the horses on this property a shelter.  Was it just the placement of the barn that was at odds with the regulations?”

The issue with this barn is indeed placement, but also procedures. The structure would be acceptable within the building envelope designated for the site, but even so it is not acceptable to build without a permit. (Had the builder sought a permit, the current situation could have been avoided.)

I don’t think anyone wants to waste resources with a teardown. However, it’s important to remember that exceptions have wider repercussions. The zoning does not distinguish between good architecture and a lime green metal building, or between a 1700 sq ft barn and a 7100 sq ft arena. A modest exception in one place could set a precedent for a disaster somewhere else.

The beauty of a barn vs. the curve of a ridge may be in the eye of the beholder, but there’s more than views at stake here. Building envelopes are also intended to protect open space for wildlife, watercourses, and other natural resources.

If this were an ordinary lot in the canyon, there would be few site restrictions. However, this is a PUD. At the underlying density of one dwelling per 40 acres, there could be two dwellings on the 100 acres in Brass Lantern, but the PUD provided five. That’s a huge density bonus, easily worth more than a million dollars today. The price for that added density is supposed to be development of better quality and location of density in more appropriate areas, hence the building envelopes and other restrictions. The density is permanent, so the restrictions should be permanently enforced if the deal is to be fair to all of us.

As several responders pointed out, if zoning is not enforced it might as well be repealed – that would at least be fairer to those who follow the rules. Allowing PUD density everywhere would have a profound effect. Fully built out at the underlying zoning of one-per-40 acres, the canyon could already triple in population to over 1300 households, becoming bigger than Big Sky is today. At the PUD density of 1-in-20, there could be nearly two Big Skies.

Future density is probably the most fundamental question that the upcoming zoning update must address. As the process gets going, we’ll be seeking your input about future visions for the canyon.

Thanks again for all the responses – this will be excellent support for our efforts to get the county to take meaningful action.