Thanks to everyone who responded to the density survey.
Detailed results are here: BCPOA Density Survey A sample:
Comments are open on this post, which is probably the easiest place to discuss the results without putting too much traffic on this email list.
The spreadsheet of complete answers is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Arh9sK-JAE8NdE1BQ0tYYkRpYUVlNHJ
The short answer appears to be that 85% of you think the current density is 1 residence per 40 acres, and over 80% think it should stay that way or become less dense. The 19 respondents who reported owning more than 40 acres (up to a few hundred) were even more certain about this (approaching 95%) than the 51 owners with 40 or fewer acres. About 40% think density should be 1-in-40, period, while another 40% would permit density transfers. A smaller minority would provide a modest density bonus in exchange for good design, while only one person out of 85 expressed interest in a double-density bonus.
Several people commented to the effect of, “why does BCPOA want to fix what isn’t broken?” There are three answers to that.
First, a number of things are broken. There are many ambiguities in the drafting of the current regulation. Ambiguity leads to a lot of needless controversy in the permitting process. An example: the PUD regulation requires an applicant to have terrain and vegetation suitable for minimizing the visual impacts of homes, but the standards don’t require you to use that terrain and vegetation. Confronted with such ambiguity, the commission doesn’t make a sensible interpretation with the General Plan in mind; it instead grants a large density bonus with no discernible community benefit, which is why we have a few PUDs with homes on exposed slopes and ridgelines.
Second, the zoning can’t remain completely static, even if we want it to, because the county has set updates in motion. For example, the commission independently proposed a draft update to the administrative section of our zoning, which gutted our enforcement provisions (as if enforcement weren’t already problematic). Deflecting such initiatives, while responding to the county’s need for administrative consistency, is important.
Third, while 80% of you think that the density is and should be 1-in-40, that’s not current practice. The county has granted density in excess of 1-in-20 through PUDs, via a combination of density bonuses and even transfers off theoretical bits of land that aren’t legal parcels. Further, the commission has granted caretaker residences without restrictions, which in effect make every parcel a two-residence unit. Combining the two, the real potential density is up to four times 1-in-40.
This is not how things originally worked. In 1971, the zoning regulation provided underlying density of 1-in-40 acres, and a PUD density up to 1-in-20 acres. However, the higher PUD density was to be achieved through transfers from areas less suitable for development. The only mention of a density bonus was a modest 30% for development in areas deemed particularly suitable. There was no provision for caretakers (though there has always been agricultural employee housing). Unfortunately the drafting of the original regulation wasn’t crystal clear. Subsequent amendments and ongoing ambiguity led to the prevailing interpretation of PUD density as a bonus (almost a giveaway). The county quit keeping track of density transfers more than 15 years ago, as they no longer serve much purpose. (I would be interested to hear the stories of people who were around at the beginning or along the way; I wasn’t quite in diapers at the time, but have to rely on reading old documents.)
That’s why we need to know what people want. Do we codify the commission’s current practices, and change the vision in the General Plan to reflect the higher density, or do we try to improve the Zoning Regulation so that it better implements the Plan, restoring something closer to 1-in-40, with clear objective standards for any transfers or bonuses in PUDs?
Thanks again for all your input.
Detailed written comments are below the fold:
| I said “no” to circumstances that would qualify for added density because history has proven that to be a farce. The county has been unwilling to enforce our actual zoning which requires a density transfer; and developers promise the moon to get extra density and the reality they provide always lacks and the rest of the canyon pays the price. Therefore, a firm line in the sand needs to be drawn and the county must be made to uphold our zoning. |
| Thank you for taking time and effort to get this survey out there. This is how the entire trails system in the Bozeman area started–first getting a good feeling for the future, then with public access meetings and then with a plan (still in place today, even with all the picking away that has occurred over the years). The Commission (especially Bill Murdoch) was the initiating force behind the master trails plan back then and can be a valuable resource in this process. This canyon is a place to protect–not just for people with money, but for the public to enjoy. Open space and trails are very important for enjoyment and for the economy–just look at any lot for sale. “Access to the trails system” is always good for a bump in value.Another issue is control of weeds. I am willing to be involved in the education about and the mitigation of these invasive species. |
| In the past 10 years that we’ve lived here there has been a constant decline in wildlife, both in number and variety of species. Continued reduction in wildlife habitat of all forms will result in elimination of the wildlife, except for the more ubiquitous types like deer and magpies. The longer that is put off the better. |
| Please, no more growth! We like it the way it is. |
| Thanks a million for doing this survey. Full speed ahead with the intent of the original zoning regulations. Your email was well written, you are a tremendous asset to BCPOA and Bridger Canyon. Many many thanks (to Tom) for all your hard work. |
| Added density should not be allowed no matter what the trade. All of the above restrictions should always be factors for all development. |
| Let’s not loose sight of the fact that property rights are paramount in most buyers and owners in BC. I believe the apathy you are seeing is largely due to the notion that the majority are completely happy with the zoning and have no interest at all in engaging themselves with all the political drama and bickering. It would serve everyone well if the few individuals who are constantly trying to improve a situation that is NOT broken to chill out and take a few years off and enjoy the beautiful canyon as it is, beautiful! ALL, economic forecast indicates a 1% to zero annual growth over the next decade. |
| This is a biased survey and does not include all the alternatives. |
| We have lived here on Jackson Creek Road for over 40 years and have seen many changes in the vally and the outlying areas during that time. The only reason that heavy development has not occured in this area as of yet, espcially during the last surge of population growth in the area, is because of the Bridger Canyon zoning. This has helped dramatically to retain an agricultural feel to the area and to restrict rampant development into multiple small ranchettes. The area has without a doubt benefited from these restrictions on development and continues to be a source of abundant wildlife and natural beauty. This is a unique area because of its close proximity to Bozeman and all of its ammenities, but yet at the same time one is able to enjoy all the abundant wildlife and relative outdoor environments that one would normally only find in much more remote areas. The property values have consistently reflected this asset. |
| Need to do something to address the traffic created by Bridger Bowl (especially if the Bridger Bowl base area is developed). |
| The reason Bridger Canyon is the way it is is because of the zoning restrictions. There is plenty of land around Bozeman that is not restricted, so let people who want to build, build somewhere that allows such density. We paid for the value of zoning, view protection, water, and natural habitats. |
| Bridger Canyon is a desirable place to live because of the rural, agricultural zoning that has been in place since the early 1970’s. It is important to retain the 1 in 40 density to protect our property values and way of life. We do not want to be another Belgrade and we do not want the Bowl to become like so many other “destination resorts” such as Jackson. Higher density adds nothing to those residing in Bridger Canyon, it only adds to traffic, and enriches speculators. The purchase of property in Bridger Canyon comes with existing zoning already in place. No one has an entitlement to sub-divide their property beyond that zoning. Subdivision of land has always been, and will continue to be, a way for speculators to profit at the expense of existing residents. Then the developer moves on to make deals elsewhere. There is no benefit to the community. As in the recent subdivision request for Greenridge, there is no benefit to other residents of Bridger Canyon. To the best of my knowledge the developer never even was a resident of the State of Montana, and has chosen to leave the area. We don’t need to have this process repeated over and over again. Those who have lived elsewhere or who have travelled to other parts of our country know what subdivision and higher density do to pristine environments. The agricultural zoning is what has attracted most residents to the Canyon. The writers of the original zoning code gave it great thought and had the foresight to maintain the desirable lifestyle we here in the Canyon enjoy. We live in a unique community, in a unique State. We have no reason to cave to the pressures of those who would see increased density. They will come at the zoning code again and again, but it is the duty of the zoning board and our county commissioners to preserve our culture, our land values, and our way of life. A land speculator had no more right to expectations of profit than a stock speculator. If a person purchases property in Bridger Canyon they are fully aware of it’s current zoning. There is no right to expect any more, or any less, than it is zoned a tthat time. Those who do not like the zoning on the land should look elsewhere for property already zoned as they want. Weaking zoning and increasing density only leads to more and more of the same. Do it once and the next guy will ask using the premise that you “did it for the other guy.” We must enforce existing zoning and resist the false promises of those who would exploit the very reason we live here. Spot zoning is not the way to create and maintain a desirable place to live or work. Unless Bridger Canyon decides to incorporate and take control of it’s own fate and future we must maintain our agricultural 1 in 40 zoning. |
| The loss of agricultural lands in the valley and the resulting change in the population of Bozeman is very sad. Going from an economy that was based on agriculture and the businesses that served that population has very negatively effected Bozeman. Not long ago, it had a good balance with the University complimenting the area. Now Bozeman is irrevesibly changed for the worse, with more and more farmlands destroyed every day. It is not hard to invision that happening in Bridger Canyon. We would be for increasing the restrictive zoning in our area. |
| The zoning commission has shown itself to be an instrument of entropy rather than order.. gradually allowing the rules to be subverted or ignored. They generally find for the individual who pushes for special exceptions, the path of least resistance in any given case. Failure to enforce and enhance the regulations which are meant to preserve the canyon as it was when I purchased my property is a “takings” of my property value by the ineptitude and disregard of elected officials. We need the Commission to stand forthright behind the central values of the zoning and ALWAYS lean towards stricter interpretation rather than accommodation. |
| Thanks for doing this Tom. Your efforts are always stellar!! Why aren’t we sticking with the original zoning? Why aren’t we insisting that the county actually enforce the zoning that so many people have spent time to create? Why is money buying individual exceptions when I imagine these people moved to the canyon because they appreciated the relatively unsullied landscape. |
| This is one of the last, best places. Adding density little by little will eventually change everything about this wonderful last, best, place. There are many other areas for density. It really is all about money…developer vs quality of life. |
| I believe the density allowance should remain the same; a PUD should be more difficult to obtain, as in clustering the houses/buildings to share driveways, enforced designated building envelopes.As a safety issue, ALL homes and buildings should have roads/driveways/and parking areas that will accomodate ALL the rescue/fire department vehicles with sufficient turnaround space. Accessibility by FD vehicles protects your house and my house. |
| I strongly support upholding and strengthening the Zoning Regulation to preserve Bridger Canyon (in its present form as an agricultural community concerned with promoting only rational and minimal development) so that all may enjoy it (residents, tourists, recreationalists) well into the future. |
| As long-time, rural Bridger Canyon residents, we love what we have. We respect the needs of new owners, developers, etc. But the truth is that we moved here for exactly the protected, carefully managed zoned environment that we researched when we arrived here. |
| Working with the county zoning commission has always been a problem. They seem to know what we want and should have better than we and rule accordingly thus eroding our ordinance over the years. The BCPOA board always has its work cut out to make them believe in our ordinance with many of the changes in the past coming directly from county input rather than canyon input. Thanks for keeping up the fight! |
| Jane Newhall had a vision when she lobbied for our present 40 acre zoning to protect the movement of elk herds and other wildlife within the Bridger Canyon corridor. I would like to see that remain intact. Having lived as a renter for many years up Bridger Canyon before becoming a homeowner, I am thrilled to see that what development has occurred has not restricted the movements of the canyon elk herds, and still provides abundant habitat for deer, bear, mountain lions, bobcats, as well as vital habitat for great grey owls and wolverines. We are truly blessed to live in such a place. |
| We purchased property in BC knowing the rules for managed density. For this reason, we purposely avoided buying in Big Sky. We like the current plan. We wish that the current plan continue! |
| It would be nice to get some expanded streamline bus service for commuters. Maybe the bus could turn around at Jackson Creek and stop at the fire station, school house and Drinking Horse? Maybe three times in the morning at 7,8 and 9:15 and a couple trips back up the canyon in the evening? |
| We moved here over twenty two years ago for the quiet life, enjoyment of the natural beauty and wildlife.There are continuing threats to these conditions. We must be alert and prevent downgrading of Bridger Canyon. |
| We moved here over twenty two years ago for the solitude and the wildlife. Any more development will destroy what we came here for. Let us protect what we have now. |
| i truly believe there is a happy median to developing the canyon and creating a place of beauty and increasing property values. my focus would be to make the valley a more desireable place to come to for recreation thru a resort cit atmosphere offering skiing golf fishing ect while controlling the developement of homes to a level that maintains a open beautiful scene. having the resort type city area and the controlled golf fishing ect will create the place people want to go to and no matter how many or how few the house our property values should grow. growth contained and manged correctly is god. |
| I am concerned that the zoning regulations are not applied uniformly, neither by the Commissioners nor by the BCPOA. |
| With all the “For Sale” signs in the canyon it would appear additional density is not necessary. |
| Preservation of wildlife migration corridors should be mentioned and addressed.Perhaps some areas could be 1/40 acres, others 1/60 and other areas even higher.
Added density for good design is a huge issue. Good design must be carefully described. Who decides what is good design? Current density bonus system gives County Commissioners too much latitude. Thanks for the effort put into preserving Bridger Canyon Zoning District! |
| Should allow guest house with kitchen on 40 acres or greater. |
| My husband and I feel very strongly about the enforcement of zoning and limits on development both of which are needed in order to maintain our quality of life, which is why we moved here, and preserve and grow property values. Both having lived in many cities, we appreciate and recognize just how special Bridger Canyon is. It’s a rare find which can be destroyed at the blink of an eye if we don’t preserve what we have today. |
| The course of action of the original Zoning Regulations, to promote the: “health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of the County,” and since then it has been nothing but a guise to keep certain people happy and the rest hindered.This is one of the most biased and worst ‘surveys’ I have ever seen. It is clear what your opinions of Bridger Canyon are and what they shall be in the future. If you honestly want other’s opinions, please do not load questions so blatantly. We all want property value growth yet preservation of of our natural habitat. Bridger Canyon Zoning has become a blight on property value and the future of value. Development is very possible in a conservative and sustainable way, but will not happen until the canyon gets off of its high horse.
Why else do you think there are so many places for sale and nothing selling? The Canyon has forgotten what the original regulations were for in exchange for individuals own sanctity and ego. Unless we all move forward we will be left in the past- with prime land worth nothing. |
| I do not see any merit “cranking” on this density issue when for half a century everything has been going smoothly and zoning in place seems to be OK. Don’t people have better things to pursue, such as noxious weed mitigation and control. BCPOA, in my opinion, seems hell bent on change, when no change is appropriate. |
| I am surrounded by RY timber property. I believe that there was a compromise reached regarding the size of the lots in this on the RY property when the Gallatin land consolidation sale occurred. Do you know what the agreement was at that time? I would like to see low density or no development on the undeveloped land that used to be National Forest. |
| I think density is not the answer. Well planned community OSA better route |
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email