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
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
Please vote no to SB614, send a note to your state legislator. We must let our voices be heard!
From the [Canyon] email list:
Hi neighbors –
This afternoon is another Envision Gallatin meeting. This is the county’s process for constructing a path to a more unified zoning framework.
https://envisiongallatin.com/
If you saw the “Terminator Bill” article in the Chronicle, you got one side of the story – that HB 614 permits counties to terminate zoning districts once another encompassing framework in place. I agree that there are some legitimate concerns about guardrails on the process.
However, like most things related to land use, it’s not that simple. There are also legitimate concerns about the patchwork of 20+ local districts with distinct and sometimes incompatible language. Also, there could be some advantages to converting Part 1 districts to Part 2 authority, which has better enforcement language.
I spoke with Planning Director Sean O’Callaghan, and he reassured me,
I can promise you that any action Gallatin County takes with respect to zoning will have a very open and transparent process – I think we have a solid track record of doing that. When working on the language for the bill, MAP thought about including additional sideboards or process, but we thought we hit the sweet spot given there is considerable public process involved in either of the two conditions that must be met before a zoning district could be dissolved(adoption of another zoning district, or opting in to the Montana Land Use Planning Act).
Envision Gallatin is the process. This doesn’t guarantee that the commission won’t flip to an anti-zoning stance, or one day seek to override our low-density approach, but I think the bottom line is that the government is not the enemy here. They’re looking for a solution to a complex set of constraints and pressures.
Unfortunately the article neglected to quote me on what I think is the key bottom line: zoning provides predictability and protection for shared resources, and that creates value both for properties and quality of life. It’s not an administrative nuisance to be gotten rid of.
At the moment, Envision Gallatin may seem a bit far off and theoretical, but I can assure you that broad planning processes can turn into specific approvals, as the residents near the huge Canyon Gate project at Story Mill found out to their dismay. Now’s the time to pay attention and influence the outcome, so I urge you to take a look at the web site, listen in on today’s meeting, and comment live or via the comment form and email on the site.
BCPOA
PO Box 10514, Bozeman
Montana, United States of America
Response from the Planning Director to information circulating about HB 614:
Ryan Stagg in my office forwarded your email to me and asked that I reply. I am aware that Ms. Dickson reached out to other advisory committee members, so am including all the Big Sky and Hebgen Lake advisory committee members on my reply.
HB 614 is a bill working its way through the Montana Legislature that was requested by the Montana Association of Planners (MAP), not Gallatin County. I serve as the Co-Chair for the legislative committee for MAP, which is why my name is associated with it. The language for HB 614 is available here, and the letter of support for HB 614 that MAP submitted to the legislature is attached.
So here are some facts related to HB 614:
Several counties in Montana are struggling with a status quo framework of multiple independently operating zoning districts. For many reasons this is a challenging framework for staff and public to operate within, and many of those challenges are compounded by a legislature that increasingly feels it is their place to preempt local government authority. That is to say that the legislature is increasingly telling local governments what zoning regulations need to say in terms of short-term rentals, accessory dwelling units, building heights, parking, allowance for multi-family dwellings, and other matters, rather than leaving that decision to local governments as has been the case for many years. Gallatin County and other counties are looking at options that would simplify the zoning framework in their jurisdictions, and combining zoning districts in some form or fashion is an obvious path to explore, but there is currently no path available under Montana law to do it.
Gallatin County has not made any decisions related to merging/dissolving/terminating zoning districts. Gallatin County is currently holding listening sessions to get feedback from the public on the topic of zoning reform. Zoning Reform Listening Sessions – the next one is tomorrow at 1:30.)
At least one county, Lewis and Clark County, has zoning district boundaries that overlap with one another and there is no path available under law to clean up the issue. HB 614 provides that authority and process.
The Montana Land Use Planning Act (which Gallatin County has not opted into, contrary to Ms. Dickson’s statements) requires counties that opt-into the Act to adopt a single zoning regulation covering the entirety of their jurisdiction. Once that step is complete, there is no process or authority for counties to follow to dissolve the underlying zoning district. HB 614 provides that process.
MAP was very concerned that the authority to dissolve a zoning district could be abused by anti-planning/zoning county commissioners. We intentionally drafted the bill so that the authority is narrow. There must be other zoning in place to protect property owners and residents before a zoning district can be dissolved.
What if someone doesn’t like the new zoning regulations? The process of adopting a zoning regulation is a public process with many opportunities for the public to participate and help shape the content of the regulation. While some details will certainly be different, with careful thought and consideration, it is possible to change the administrative structure (e.g. merge multiple districts together) while still preserving the character of the existing zoning regulations.
The hearing on HB 614 was held before the House Local Government Committee with the same amount of notice as all the other bills they hear. The noticing and scheduling of that hearing is not something I have the ability to influence.
I would also like to clarify that Ms. Dickson is with a group called the Bridger Canyon Property Rights Coalition. She is not affiliated in any formal way with the Bridger Canyon Zoning District other than being a property owner there. She is currently in litigation with the County over the County’s regulation of short-term rentals in the Bridger Canyon Zoning District and has been spending a considerable amount of time in Helena this legislative session working to limit the ability of local governments to plan and regulate land use as we have for many years. One of her tactics in Helena has been to share bits of information that don’t reflect the whole story and to intentionally distort facts, just as she did in the below email.
I’m happy to answer any additional questions about HB 614.
Thanks,
Sean O’Callaghan, AICP, CFM
Chief Planning Officer
Department of Planning & Community Development
Gallatin County