Author Archives: bcpoa

Possible Cell Tower Coverage

3 Replies

Last week, Atlas Towers representative Tierney Rowe met (separately) with Bridger Bowl’s board and BCPOA directors. There is not currently a proposal before the commission, but discussions are progressing. The following coverage maps are one product.

Hi Folks, these are .jpgs which you can download and then zoom into, showing the various types of coverage that the towers currently proposed by Atlas Towers would accomplish.

There are two proposed sites, one at Bridger Bowl called BridgerSki and the other at the Brunners’ property [in Kelly Canyon] called BridgerSouth.

Each individual site has two propagation maps representing coverage by 850 MHZ or 1900 MHZ. Apparently each frequency has pros and cons so they are mixed for best results.

Then there are two “composite” maps that show coverage over the entire Canyon with Bridger Ski and Bridger South coverage mixed, at each frequency. Not sure why we didn’t get a map that shows both frequencies together over the entire canyon.

Remember that these maps are based on a 130′ tower at Bridger Bowl and a 150′ tower at the Brunners. Clearly, the taller the tower, the better the coverage. I understand from several sources that the BB Board is not considering the 130′ tower and wants to see something in the 60′ range. And I think it fair to say that an 150′ tall tower at the Brunners would elicit considerable local concern.

That being said, when you look at these propagation maps keep in mind this is a best possible scenario which is based on tower heights that are very unlikely to happen. [In particular, the 130′ tower at Bridger Bowl was a no-go with the board.] Hence, coverage will be less complete than what is shown. See Tierney’s comment below about tower height.*

Kent Madin

* “The primary goal is good coverage and tower height directly correlates to the quality and density of coverage in these locations where terrain issues place limitations on signal transmission.”

Composite850mhz Composite1900mhz

Composite coverage maps at 850 and 1900 MHz. Click to enlarge.

Update: Overlays of the coverage map with zoning district boundaries (blue), parcel lines (yellow) and structures (orange dots).

850MHz:

CoverageOverlay850mhz

1900MHz:

CoverageOverlay1900mhz

Bridger Canyon Natural History Evening, March 29

Leave a reply

To the Residents of Bridger Canyon,

A number of people, in conjunction with the the Bridger Canyon Historic Preservation Association and the Montana Outdoor Science School (MOSS), have volunteered their time and expertise to enjoy and explore with Bridger Canyon residents an evening of “Bridger Canyon Natural History”. We would like to enhance this presentation with a display of photos or photos of artwork (no originals) from YOU, BC residents, which depict unusual/interesting natural history features of Bridger Canyon – geologic or water formations, birds, animals, plants both common and rare, etc.

This community event for Bridger Canyon residents will be at the Fire Station MARCH 29th, 7pm. If you have photos you’d like to contribute, please send them at your earliest convenience to:

Kathrin Olson-Rutz at : olsonrutz (at) netzero.net.

She will print 8 1/2X 11″ copies for the display. (You may also mail or deliver 8 ½ X 11” photos to MOSS, located at the Fish Hatchery). Please provide a few words that describe your contribution (what, general location, when) along with your name and contact information (email and phone number). This information will be printed out along with your photo to accompany your contribution. Feel free to provide several photos. We will display as many as we reasonably can. (No copyrighted material please.)

This spring, we would like to take the pictures we have printed out and assemble them into several “Bridger Canyon natural history notebooks” to be kept at the MOSS facility. These notebooks will be available to MOSS students and Bridger Canyon residents to identify and learn about Bridger Canyon plants, animals, water and geology. Residents are welcome to submit additional information specific to Bridger Canyon for these notebooks and can do so through MOSS.

For those unfamiliar with MOSS, it is dedicated to help children gain meaningful appreciation of the natural world around them through various educational projects (K-12 and some adult classes). MOSS takes the classroom to the field with trips to National Forest lands in Bridger Canyon, as well as to some private lands onto which they have been specifically invited for learning opportunities.

I hope you find this of interest! For more information, contact Ellen Trygstad (582-7624) eltjupiter (at) earthlink.net Thank you!

To the Residents of Bridger Canyon,

UPCOMING EVENT! A number of people, in conjunction with the the Bridger Canyon Historic Preservation Association and the Montana Outdoor Science School (MOSS), have volunteered their time and expertise to enjoy and explore with Bridger Canyon residents an evening of “Bridger Canyon Natural History”. We would like to enhance this presentation with a display of photos or photos of artwork (no originals) from YOU, BC residents, which depict unusual/interesting natural history features of Bridger Canyon – geologic or water formations, birds, animals, plants both common and rare, etc. 

This community event for Bridger Canyon residents will be at the Fire Station MARCH 29th, 7pm. If you have photos you’d like to contribute, please send them at your earliest convenience to: 

Kathrin Olson-Rutz at :  olsonrutz@netzero.net.

She will print 8 1/2X 11″ copies for the display. (You may also mail or deliver 8 ½ X 11” photos to MOSS, located at the Fish Hatchery). Please provide a few words that describe your contribution (what, general location, when) along with your name and contact information (email and phone number). This information will be printed out along with your photo to accompany your contribution. Feel free to provide several photos. We will display as many as we reasonably can. (No copyrighted material please.)

This spring, we would like to take the pictures we have printed out and assemble them into several “Bridger Canyon natural history notebooks” to be kept at the MOSS facility. These notebooks will be available to MOSS students and Bridger Canyon residents to identify and learn about Bridger Canyon plants, animals, water and geology. Residents are welcome to submit additional information specific to Bridger Canyon for these notebooks and can do so through MOSS.

For those unfamiliar with MOSS, it is dedicated to help children gain meaningful appreciation of the natural world around them through various educational projects (K-12 and some adult classes). MOSS takes the classroom to the field with trips to National Forest lands in Bridger Canyon, as well as to some private lands onto which they have been specifically invited for learning opportunities.

I hope you find this of interest! For more information, contact Ellen Trygstad (582-7624) eltjupiter@earthlink.net   Thank you!

Commissioner Murdock Resigning

Leave a reply

County Commissioner Bill Murdock will be resigning next month. He will surely be missed in Bridger Canyon. He has often been a lonely voice on the commission in favor of the good land use planning that has kept the Canyon beautiful. From the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Editorial: Murdock was county’s voice for responsible planning

Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:15 am

The departure of retiring Gallatin County Commissioner Bill Murdock next month will mark the end of an era. For 16 years, Murdock has been a voice of moderation in what tends to be a conservative office.

County commission elections are dominated by the rural vote, which tends to be quite conservative on land-use and planning issues. And that vote is rarely overcome by the pro-planning faction among the county’s only real urban voters in Bozeman.

Murdock has long battled the headwind of those conservative tendencies. He has contributed heavily to successes in land-use planning and regulation as well as open-space preservation. He has also been a stalwart enforcer of policy in the face of frequent and well-financed challenges from real estate developers.

That influence will be missed.

Murdock’s term doesn’t end until the end of next year. His resignation triggers a process that will name his replacement on the commission – a person that will take the advantage of incumbency into the 2014 election.

law, the remaining two commissioners, Republicans Steve White and Joe Skinner will name Murdock’s successor from a field of three candidates suggested by state GOP leadership because Murdock is also a Republican.

Murdock’s departure and the process for replacing him have the potential to push the commission hard to the right. And that would not bode well for the future of some land-use issues in Gallatin County.

Republican leaders and White and Skinner are urged to consider all the county’s constituents as they appoint Murdock’s replacement. Filling the seat with another advocate for land-use planning and open-space preservation will maintain a healthy balance on the commission and stimulate vigorous debate on these very important issues.

Quality of life is what has drawn many immigrants to Bozeman and Southwest Montana. A big part of that quality of life is the open countryside and expansive views of our rural areas. And the County Commission plays a major role in preserving those amenities.

Choose Murdock’s replacement carefully. Find another powerful voice for smart planning and open-space preservation.

Lessons from the Theken Barn

Leave a reply

Two years of administrative and legal wrangling came to an end recently when the Montana Supreme Court told Randy Theken to remove his half-built barn below the “M.” This was an affirmation of both law and common sense.

To the residents of Bridger Canyon who invested their time and money to defend the zoning regulations in this matter, congratulations, your efforts were well spent and much appreciated. To the four members of the Bridger Canyon Zoning Commission (BCZC) who reviewed the facts, listened to the community and voted that the barn must be removed, thanks for standing with your regulations and your constituents. Thanks to Judge Salvagni, who affirmed the decision by the commission. And thanks to the Montana Supreme Court who saw the issue clearly in spite of what the court characterized as Mr. Theken’s efforts “to complicate an otherwise straightforward question.”

When a legal question winds its way all the way up to the Supreme Court, there should be some lessons learned beyond the details of building permits and “building envelopes,” lessons that strengthen the community.

First and foremost, is the simple maxim “Rules are rules.” If you can’t or won’t enforce rules, don’t make them. If it is your job to enforce existing rules, do it in an efficient, consistent and timely manner. After-the-fact administrative sleight of hand that forgives broken rules only encourages the breaking of rules in the first place. Much expense for all parties would have been avoided by Mr. Theken’s applying for a permit before starting his barn or working with the BCZD and his neighbors on a location or design that met the regulations. By proceeding solely on his own authority he has had to dismantle his barn.

“Well-conceived and strongly enforced land use planning is essential” said the Montana Supreme Court in 1995 when the court found in favor of Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association (BCPOA) when the property owners objected to higher than allowable density in the Bridger Bowl base area.

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for our organization, BCPOA, to cut through the jargon of planning and zoning and explain to Gallatin County residents just what we see is at stake in these zoning issues for both the residents and non-residents who enjoy the Canyon.

BCZD was created by grass-roots citizen petition 41 years ago to oversee an orderly and predictable process of development while fiercely guarding the qualities (water, air, wildlife, agricultural use, rural lifestyle) that define the ambiance of the Canyon and preserve the property values of those of us who live there. It has done a pretty fine job so far. For the second time in as many decades, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed the core values and integrity of Bridger Canyon Zoning District.

Each of those Supreme Court cases, when you clear away the details, comes down to one simple concept: density. Here’s what the Master Plan said in 1971 (and still says, loud and clear, in 2012): “Agricultural preservation is a primary goal which is to be accomplished by limiting development to one housing unit per 40 acres, and providing for higher density under planned unit developments. The forty (40) acre minimum lot size is based on limiting population so that the capacity of the two (2) lane highway is not exceeded.”

In other words, once growth demands a widened road the rural and natural qualities of Bridger Canyon will be lost.

For the last several months a long overdue update of the Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulations has been underway. Reaffirming the original density restriction should remain the paramount objective – it goes right to the bottom line of property values. But over the last few years residents have seen indirect calls for higher density through a variety of dubious machinations and interpretations of the regulations. For both residents and those who travel the Canyon or recreate there this presages a gradual diminution of the space, the quiet, the wildlife and the vistas.

We look forward to working with the professionals in planning and our elected representatives in developing and enforcing a streamlined set of regulations that reaffirms and defends the core principle of density limitation, the clear intention of those who established the first zoning district in the State of Montana.

Kent Madin and Richard Lyon wrote this on behalf of the board of directors of the Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association.

[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”12″ maptype=”hybrid” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”45.709427° -110.985211°{}1-default.png{}Theken barn” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]

Density Survey Results

Leave a reply

Thanks to everyone who responded to the density survey.

Detailed results are here: BCPOA Density Survey A sample:

DensitySurveyCapture

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: Continue reading →

Enforcement Survey Results

Leave a reply

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.

News Archive

Leave a reply

News from 2006-2009 is archived in this post.

BCPOA 2009 Newsletter

The newsletter is posted on the forum. Update: Bridger Pines has almost surely secured TSEP funding for a sewer system, and plans to pursue a system independent of Bridger Canyon Partners.

Oil & Gas Zoning Amendment Passes in Zoning Commission Hearing

Deb Stratford shepherded BCPOA’s petition for a Natural Resources CUP amendment through the planning office and into today’s joint Zoning Commission/County Commission hearing. We and other Canyon residents testified in support of the amendment. (Background on the amendment is in the forum at http://groups.google.com/group/bridger-canyon-forum ). A representative for Canyon landowner Jim Taylor supported the general idea of resource zoning, but opposed the proposed amendment.

Ultimately, the commission voted unanimously in favor of approval. The vote of approval transmits a recommendation to the County Commission, which will act at its next opportunity (probably October 21 or 22). The commission will not need to reopen public comment at that point, because today’s joint hearing already satisfies the requirement for a hearing, but will likely do so anyway, in part to provide further opportunity for opponents to speak, as requested by Commissioner White. Given today’s unanimous vote, it seems reasonable to hope that approval is almost certain.

Further hearing details and Chronicle coverage in the forum.

Notice – Oct 9 Public Hearing re Bridger Canyon Oil, Gas & Mining Zoning Amendment

On October 9th, the Bridger Canyon Planning and Zoning Commission and the Gallatin County Commission will hold a joint hearing to consider a request from the BCPOA to amend the zoning regulation. The hearing begins at 9:00 am in the Courthouse Community Room, 311 W Main St., Bozeman. For details, see this forum message.

DNRC Proposes Oil & Gas Lease Sales in Bridger Canyon, Bangtails, Bozeman Pass

For news coverage, maps, and information see the Bridger Canyon Forum.

Base Area Coverage in Outside Bozeman

Outside Bozeman’s Summer 2008 edition has a short article on the status of development in the Base Area. They write, “If there’s one thing to learn from this, it’s “don’t mess with the BCPOA”—it fought developers all the way to the Montana Supreme Court in 1995 and won.”

Annual Meeting

The BCPOA annual meeting will be held on May 29th (see the calendar for details). The agenda includes a review of the big developments this year, election of new directors, some minor amendments to the bylaws, and an introduction to the new Bridger to Bangtail Coalition, among other things. Join us beforehand for a tour and dedication for the expanded fire station.

BCPOA ’08 Newsletter

The 2008 BCPOA Newsletter is up (hopefully you already received a copy in your mailbox). You can read it here. One erratum: the propane purchase deadline is April 30th (not the 20th).

Base Area Development Proposal Withdrawn

3/27/2008
Bridger Canyon Partners has withdrawn its current application to develop Bridger Mountain Village in the Bridger Bowl base area. Undoubtedly there will be another proposal, but for the moment we have avoided a bad outcome. Hopefully this increases the possibility of a development in accordance with our zoning. Thanks to all who helped bring this about!

Update: see coverage in the Chronicle and NewWest. Tell us what you think in the forum.

BMV visualization

Base Area Update, Research and Emergency Pages Added

1/17/2008
We’ve added a page on emergency preparedness.

BCPOA continues to meet with BCP, the Gallatin County Planning Department, and Bridger Bowl, in order to achieve a good outcome in the Base Area. The focus of our conversations with the county has been our research into ineligible density transfers and other legal and procedural problems with the application. We’ve documented our findings here.

Base Area Development Update

11/17/2007

Here is the latest on the proposed development at Bridger Bowl.

As a quick review, On May 15, BCP asked the commission to table its Master PUD and Phase 1 CUP applications for Bridger Mountain Village, to permit facilitated conversations with BCPOA.  As of today, the application remains tabled.

Over the summer, facilitator Mike Lily read the applications and our web site, and worked with BCP and BCPOA to identify many areas of disagreement. Water and phasing emerged as keystone issues, in need of resolution before discussion could proceed in other areas.

Meanwhile, BCPOA found and hired a respected land use planner, Jimmy Pepper, to review the proposed development. We concluded that he had good ideas, and agreed that Pepper and BCP’s Dick Prugh should work together to tackle the water and phasing issues.

On October 24, representatives from BCP, BCPOA, Bridger Bowl, and other base area landowners met to discuss Prugh & Pepper’s progress. A number of changes were presented, including:

  • an offer to withdraw the Phase 1 CUP application (this has not yet occurred)
  • removal of 4 overnight units from the Crosscut meadow (in addition to 21 removed in the spring hearings)
  • relocation of the 25 units removed from the meadow adjacent to the existing Bridger Bowl base area
  • principles guiding phasing, such that
    • any initial construction would include density adjacent to the existing or proposed bases
    • commercial space and other amenities, overnight units, and recreational homes would be built in proportion
  • an offer to apply for water permits for subsequent phases as conditional use permits are applied for, relying on phasing principles to create a good project if water proves insufficient at later dates
  • removal of plan detail for secondary roads

On November 2, BCP and BCPOA met to discuss further refinements, including relocation of residential units and roads bracketing Bridger Creek. We continue to fund Pepper’s work with Prugh, to flesh out the principles guiding phasing and to develop detailed design standards for areas designated for development.

As things now stand, we are pleased with the results the planners have achieved, but much remains to be done:

  • The idea of relying on a master land use plan, implemented by subsequent detailed plans, to manage water availability and other contingencies remains untested until detailed specifications are drawn up.
  • A number of legal and procedural issues need to be resolved with the county before we can have a road map to an enforceable project specification that does not create loopholes in our regulations.
  • Detailed building and site design specifications are needed to ensure a light footprint and tighter integration with Bridger Bowl.
  • Other issues raised in testimony, including traffic, have not yet been addressed.

It remains BCP’s ambition to implement changes to the application by adding conditions of approval, in order to have a hearing in January. BCPOA hopes that BCP instead will submit a formal amendment to its application, in order to provide for adequate planning and public review.  Taking the time to allow our collaboration to mature should result in something truly new and viable to present. We look forward to continued positive progress between our groups.

We are encouraged by the progress that has been made. We are where we are thanks in large part to the work of our land use consultant, Jimmy Pepper.  Which leads to our plea for donations.  We need a significant infusion of immediate cash to sustain our momentum and progress.  This is money well spent: it helps us to craft an attractive Base Area development, and is providing essential information for future improvements to the zoning regulations and general plans. In order to continue moving forward, we need  financial support from each and every owner in the Canyon.  Please look deep within yourselves and determine how important maintaining the integrity of our canyon – its water supply, natural beauty, and wildlife – is to you.

Please send your contribution to:  BCPOA, PO Box 10541, Bozeman, MT 59715.  If you prefer to make a contribution in the form of stock, please contact our Treasurer, Mary-Martha Bahn, at 587-5229 for details on how to make this happen.

As always, thank you for your support.  If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact one of your Board Members.

Gallatin Gateway Developments

Gallatin Gateway citizens are working to develop a neighborhood plan. That’s been a contentious issue lately, due to pending applications to increase the scale of gravel mining. They seem to be facing many of the same issues we do in defending our zoning. Check out their web site at www.gatewaycommunityplan.com

Base Area Discussions Ongoing

The Bridger Mountain Village PUD application remains tabled while BCP and BCPOA pursue facilitated discussions. See Status.

Gallatin Grassroots Forum on the future of Gallatin Valley

The Gallatin Grassroots Forum and NewWest.Net are hosting the first in a series of community conversations titled, Shaping the Future of the Valley: Our Growing Challenge, at 7pm on September 12th at the Museum of the Rockies. The evening’s panel will consist of community members and specialists that will discuss issues that are essential to our valley:   agriculture, Walt Sales, Gallatin Valley Farmer; community design & growth management, Ralph Johnson, MSU architecture professor; housing & real estate, Andy Epple, City of Bozeman’s Director of Planning and Zoning; water & air quality, State Rep. JP Pomnichowski, HD 63; economic vitality, Sarah Waring, Sonoran Institute. See Gallatin Grassroots Forum for details.

Bridger Canyon Picnic August 26

OLD FASHIONED BRIDGER CANYON PICNIC
‘The Way We Were’
JOIN FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

Sunday, August 26, 2007 – Hennings’ Barn
7300 Bridger Canyon Road – 1:00 p.m.
What to bring:
* Your Family
* Your Yard Chairs
* Your Favorite Potluck Dish to Share (Serve 12 people)
* Your Drink (Lemonade & Coffee Provided)
* Your New Neighbor

Food to share, good company and games for the kids

Budworm spraying planned for June 25

See the forum for details.

Annual Meeting

We have a new board! Thanks to outgoing board chair Alex Eby and members Ken Danhof, Mike Smith, Don Daniels, and Richard Boyle for their hard work. Welcome to new board members Tom Bergsland, John Neerhout, Mary Martha Bahn, Rick Anderson, and Pauline Sager.

Bridger Mountain Village Application Tabled

May 15, 2007. At today’s zoning commission hearing, Bridger Canyon Partners asked that board discussion be continued to a later date, to enable facilitated discussions with BCPOA and residents, in the hope of reaching some agreement. Also, the planning department delivered its amended staff report and a verbal response to BCPOA and canyon resident concerns (see the Base Area page).

Spruce budworm information & discussion page

A number of canyon residents plan to spray Bt, a bacterium, to control the spruce budworm infestation that is currently afflicting our trees. BCPOA is not sponsoring or coordinating the spraying, but we are providing information and a forum for discussion. We particularly want to ensure that pros and cons are weighed carefully, and to assist with notification when spraying is to occur.

We’re using the new discussion forum to facilitate comment and coordination. Anyone can browse and post messages (you only need a google id to post), and you can join the group to be automatically notified of new content (which might include spray notification). The forum includes a page of budworm information and links, which we will augment over the next few days.

Introducing Bridger Canyon forum

We’ve created a forum for discussion and collaboration on canyon issues.

Google Groups
Subscribe to Bridger Canyon Forum
Email:
Visit this group

Anyone can browse or post messages. You can receive email notification of new posts, and receive the RSS feed in your favorite news reader. We hope this will be useful for coordinating budworm spraying and other initiatives.

Base Area updates

We have posted most BCPOA testimony from the zoning hearings and updated the Base Area page.

Next base area zoning hearing – May 15

April 17, 2007. Public comment on the Base Area development proposal is now closed. BCP wrapped up its rebuttal Tuesday night. The zoning commission has continued the hearing to May 15, 1:00 PM for board discussion. Be sure to attend!

Media coverage of the Base Area hearing

Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Opponents slam Bridger Canyon plan
By DAVE RICHARDSON, Chronicle Staff Writer
Community response to a zoning hearing on the massive proposed Bridger Mountain Village development adjacent to Bridger Bowl indicates the project could prove to be a tough sell indeed. [more…]

NBC Montana – KFCW News Channel 9

A BIG DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN SOUTHWEST MONTANA IS SEEING A FIRESTORM OF CRITICISM.
Author: Lincoln Graves 4/13/07
It’s called the Bridger Mountain Village and if it goes forward, Bridger Bowl could be in for some major cosmetic changes. [more…]

It’s still not too late! Hearing continued …

April 12, 2007. Today the Bridger Canyon Zoning Commission heard testimony on the proposed Base Area development. Many Bridger Canyon and Bozeman residents showed up, and about 20 testified, including BCPOA board members. We have a lot to say, so it took a long time, but many good points were made. Many more residents and other interested parties are still on the list to speak. The hearing has been continued to 1:00 PM, Tuesday, April 17th. The public commment period has not been closed, so you can still send a letter or sign up to testify.

Today, after a little quibbling over ground rules, we heard Randy Johnson deliver the Planning Dept. Staff Report . Next up, Dick Proulx delivered Bridger Canyon Partners’ presentation. Then the commission opened the floor for public testimony … If you want to catch up, you can listen to the taped testimony at the county offices, but honestly, we’d advise you to wait for the book. We will post written testimony here if we deem it to be of general interest.

Interested, but unable to participate? Send the board your thoughts!

It’s not too late to participate!

April 10, 2007. There’s still time to enter a letter into the public record before the Base Area zoning hearing, and we’ll help you get there to testify. See our updated instructions.

Thank You!

April 5, 2007. BCPOA has received many generous contributions in support of our efforts to guarantee an attractive outcome in the Bridger Bowl Base Area. Your donations provide much needed legal and technical expertise to support the hundreds of hours volunteers have invested in this project.

Gallatin County Planning Department’s Staff Review of the proposed development is out.

April 5, 2007. Check the Base Area page for comment and a copy of the report.

Base Area Hearing Moving Forward on April 12th.

Mar. 21, 2007. Your participation is critical. See 10 ways to help.

BCPOA 2007 Newsletter

Feb 2007. The 2007 newsletter will be in your mailbox soon. Topics include:

You can read it here!

Base Area PUD Hearing Postponed

The zoning hearing for Bridger Canyon Partners’ PUD application has been moved from March 8th to April 12th.

Bridger Bowl Base Area Update

The BCPOA Development Committee has been tracking Bridger Canyon Partners’ plans for development in the Bridger Bowl Base Area. Find out more about our concerns and ways to help.