The May 12th Planning & Zoning Commission considered a Conditional Use Permit for a Caretaker’s Residence. BCPOA opposed the application. Our central argument was that, regardless of the merits of caretaker’s residences, the zoning regulation defines them as dwelling units, and the general plan requires 1-in-40 density for dwelling units. Therefore a caretaker’s residence requires density, and cannot be granted on a small parcel. (Read the testimony below for a more comprehensive picture.)
The commission rejected this and the rest of our arguments, relying on precedent, because caretaker’s residences have been approved on other parcels without regard for density (often over BCPOA’s objections), and the merits of caretaker’s residences for convenience and security, as perceived in Big Sky. Precedent cannot have been the primary issue, because the commission declined to include a condition prohibiting separate sale and rental, which has been applied consistently in the past.
The commission has not yet issued a written decision.
BCPOA written testimony: BCPOA Ivey CUP
Staff report: WV_IveyCUP
Supporting document: Ivey_CUP_Additional_Info
