A personal comment on HB 614 (not formally approved by the board, due to extremely short time):

Dear Representatives,

Please oppose HB 614, providing for County termination of zoning districts.

In 1971, when citizen-initiated zoning was created, many citizens banded together to form districts. In Bridger Canyon, in Gallatin County, that district remains a beloved institution, and we view it as substantially responsible for the preservation of our community, our natural resources, and our property values.

Montana Constitution

ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

These citizen-initiated districts are an example of the best spirit of the constitution, and have been popular and proliferated, with the most recent request in Gallatin County just a year ago. People don’t form them lightly, because it’s a difficult process. Yet they provide predictability in land use that is widely appreciated, as a good tradeoff for an administrative cost that is small compared to the value created.

I have been involved in zoning for nearly 20 years, for much of that time as chairman of Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association, which represents about 250 households in a rural district. I fully recognize that the success of citizen-initiated districts has become a challenge for the counties, due to the complexity of administering districts with distinct goals and regulations. We as citizens would value harmonization as much as the county, because it would reduce errors, improve consistency, and perhaps reduce the costs that drive our taxes a tiny bit.

However, we don’t want a unilateral termination process that could be used to pound our diverse districts into a top-down framework without more citizen input that HB 614 provides. Ideally, a termination bill would provide a way for Commissioners to initiate a referendum, so that citizens could decide the fate of their district, as then did when it was formed. Minimally, a termination bill MUST provide more notice and due process than an ordinary hearing affords. This is an extraordinary event, that could be expected to happen once a century, not once a month. A termination bill should also provide standards for an encompassing district and an orderly process for preservation of legacy approvals, similar to nonconforming uses.

Provide the citizens with an attractive, open, bottom-up process, and I am certain that we will respond with enthusiasm for harmonization. Top-down termination will, I fear, lead to discord.

Regards,

Tom Fiddaman

Bozeman/Bridger Canyon