On May 8, a joint hearing of the Bridger Canyon Planning & Zoning Commission and the County Commission will consider a proposed Personal Wireless Services (i.e. cell towers) amendment to the Bridger Canyon Zoning.
We’ve provided the text of the amendment and some background on the Zoning Advisory Board web site, at http://bczoning.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/personal-wireless-services-amendment-poll/
There’s also a one-question poll: should the amendment be approved, approved with changes, or rejected? Let us know what you think. Comments are open on the post as well.
In the interest of promoting communication on a contentious issue, BCPOA has offered each candidate in the BCRFD Trustee election the opportunity to share their thoughts in their own words. We hope you find these helpful.
Statements are unedited and order is random.
Jump to: Franklin Coles * Peggy Foster * John Maloney * Jane Lerner
Those of us who live in Bridger Canyon have beautiful scenery, wildlife and outdoor activities all year round. In addition, we are blessed with a community unlike many others. This is a community where neighbors help neighbors, and the community comes together to support each other. An important part of our community is our fire department where volunteers are willing to step up and act as fire fighters, trustees and support personnel to keep our beautiful canyon safe.
In the past year BCRFD has made great strides. Many new volunteers, mostly Canyon residents, have been recruited as fire fighters. We have a new, experienced Chief. Training hours are up significantly, public notices are posted for all meetings and the public encouraged to participate. All minutes and financial statements are available on our website, as BCRFD strives to be more open and transparent. Learn more at: www.bridgercanyonfire.org.
I want to see us continue all of this good work and put the past behind us and focus on the future. Our fire department serves all of the residents of the Canyon, and my hope is to help make sure all voices and concerns are heard and addressed. My prior experience practicing law plus years of service on local and national boards should benefit Canyon residents. If you agree it is time to move forward to support and build our fire department, please vote for me.
Visit www.supportourfireboard.org for more information.
To Protect Lives and Property
Before moving here, I spent 20 years as a professional firefighter, EMT, paramedic, inspector, and arson investigator for a city of nearly 50,000 with a daytime population of 100,000. In that 20 years, I was involved in over 4,670 fire calls, 9,340 medical calls, and received over 7,300 hours of training.
Has the BCFD Changed its Mission?
This board has put our volunteers, residents, and visitors to the Canyon at risk because of this “non-issue”. Make this board a “non-issue”; vote “YES” to recall. Vote for Franklin and John, because we have not lost track of what the Mission of all Firefighters is and always has been—to protect lives and property.
Go to www.bcfdsafetycoalition.org for more information
I moved to Bozeman, Montana in 1995 when my husband retired from the US Navy. I earned my Master of Professional Accountancy from MSU and worked as a CPA in the public sector until retiring in 2012. I was the treasurer for Hope Lutheran Church for seven years, on the board of Haven, am presently involved in Family Promise, Financial Secretary at Christ The King Church and Treasurer for the Bridger Canyon Women’s Club. During tax season, I do volunteer tax work for HRDC.
I filled an unexpired term on board in 2009 and was elected to a 3 year term in 2011. Since joining the board I have:
The current board has accomplished many significant improved practices:
The district currently has a professional and dedicated team of firefighters, the majority of whom live in the district. These dedicated volunteers deserve the full support of this board. I will continue to support them in every way possible, with a genuine commitment to the safety and best interests of the district.
Visit www.supportourfireboard.org for more information.
If elected BCFD trustees, retired professional firefighter, John Maloney and I promise that our primary duty SHALL be to provide the District with the highest level protection possible. We will conserve district resources and strive to create an environment that permits the return of the resigned well-trained and experienced firefighters to serve alongside the new volunteers in providing the District with high level protection. We will treat firefighters, the Department’s most valuable resource, with appreciation and respect.
The current board has not placed protection of the District and conservation of Department resources as priorities.
The trustees disrespected firefighters yet stated repeatedly their desire to enter mediation with them. The trustees’ actions discredit their claims. Last May, 18 of 22 highly experienced BCFD volunteer firefighters resigned. When District residents sought a temporary restraining order, permitting the return of ousted firefighters, pending a court hearing, trustees argued that MCA 7-33-2105 (1b) authorizes trustees to provide fire protection but does not require them to do so. Curiously, the board demonstrated in court that provision of protection to the District is optional, and with no public input, fought the firefighters’ return.
Although the board’s use of $24,000 for attorney’s fees to fight the firefighters’ return was paid by the District’s insurance, this claim may have put the insurability of the District in severe jeopardy. Apparently, our insurer has “red-flagged” the District’s policy for its recent claims history. If the Department files one more claim, we are likely to lose our insurance coverage. Based upon our claim history, no other insurance company would issue the BCFD a policy: too risky! No insurance means no local protection.
John Maloney and I will strive to help the Department realize its potential for the highest level of protection possible.
Go to www.bcfdsafetycoalition.org for more information
Release Date: Feb 14, 2014
Bozeman, MT–The Bozeman Ranger District, Custer and Gallatin National Forests has released an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the South Bridger Interface Project that is available for review and public comment. The District will also be hosting an informational meeting on Monday March 3, 2014 at the Bridger Canyon Rural Fire Department Community Room from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. (8081 Bridger Canyon Road, Bozeman, MT). Resource specialists will be available to provide information and answer questions about the proposed South Bridger Interface Project, which is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Bozeman, MT in Bridger Canyon.
The South Bridger Interface project area is located within the wildland urban interface, adjacent to and partially within the Bridger Bowl Ski Resort in the vicinity of Slushman Creek. It lies between private residential and forested/agricultural lands to the east and National Forest System lands, partly occupied by Bridger Bowl to the west. Forest vegetation in the project area consists of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine that has experienced a high rate of tree mortality from spruce budworm and mountain pine beetle. The proposed action would thin approximately 250 acres of forest vegetation to reduce tree mortality from ongoing insect infestations, and is needed to maintain a healthy forest in the Bridger Canyon corridor. Without treatment, there is a high probability that many more trees would be severely impacted by budworm and Douglas-fir beetles.
“The proposed project includes treatments that are designed to alter stand micro-environments that will create conditions less favorable to western spruce budworm, mountain pine beetle and Douglas-fir beetle; along with improving the growing space of remaining trees to allow for tree growth, vigor and resiliency,” explained Keith Konen, Forest Silviculturalist.
Minimal temporary road construction of one half mile or less is anticipated for access. The proposed project would start in 2014 and would be completed within a three-year timeframe, followed by burning of slash piles, rehabilitation of temporary roads and monitoring of the project.
Public comment on the project will be accepted for 30 days (through March 16, 2014). The South Bridger Interface Environmental Assessment is available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/gallatin/landmanagement/projects, by scanning the QR code, or by contacting the Bozeman Ranger District at 406-522-2520 to request a copy. For additional information about the project, contact Amy Waring, Project leader at 406-255-1451
Updates:
Bozeman Daily Chronicle coverage
SBridgerInterface.pdf press release
As you may recall, the membership at the May General Meeting voted overwhelmingly to appeal the commission’s grant of a variance to enable conversion of old barns to guesthouse/recreational use, within the setback from Bridger Creek. As is too often the case, this was an episode of build-first-permit-later, and we were puzzled to see the commission seemingly content to see its authority flouted. There’s more background here:
http://bcpoa.net/2013/04/variance-hearing/
BCPOA has appealed the commission’s decision, granting a variance that allows the project to proceed. While this is a very messy, multilayered case, the points we would like to make are simple. For example,
The first issue we are contesting is that the commission did not issue a proper written decision; it merely delivered the verdict, making reference to the audio recording of the proceedings. That makes it difficult to distinguish actual findings from mere discussion, and imposes additional burdens on anyone who desires to review or contest a decision. This is a constitutional issue, and if we prevail on this point, we may recover our costs. However, in that case, a likely outcome is that the judge would remand the case to the commission for a fresh statement of the decision, essentially restarting the process.
Getting to the meat of the case, it’s still complicated. There are actually two standards for a variance, one via the P&Z commission, and one via the county commission. Rather than considering them sequentially, as is proper, both were heard together. We don’t believe that either standard was met, but this further mingles procedural and substantive issues.
The variance case was actually heard twice. Initially, the commission denied it. Then, circumventing regulations that prevent rehearing an application within one year, the commission reconsidered the variance a month later, under the pretense that it had been “withdrawn” and re-presented with new information.
As if that weren’t enough, the commission only considered the question of a variance after it had already granted a Conditional Use Permit for the project. This is backwards, because the CUP is moot without the variance, and the discussion of standards among the two proceedings was somewhat mingled and confused.
As the case now stands, BCPOA has filed its initial complaint, and the parties have responded. We have moved for summary judgment on the constitutional issue of adequacy of the written decision.
We have met with the other parties to agree on what documents constitute the official record. The county has fought tooth and nail to exclude a few documents, including its own variance evaluation criteria and public sewer permit records. We are somewhat puzzled by this, as they are part of the evidence of a pattern of errors and omissions, but not decisive in themselves. This wrangling increases our costs, deterring future appeals. (By contrast, BCPOA cheerfully granted the applicant’s request to intervene, though it is not in our favor and we could have contested it, because we felt that it was right to do so and minimized cost and delay to all concerned.)
Next, we must file a brief on the substance of the case, though we are hoping to defer that until the constitutional question has been heard.
For the moment, BCPOA is adequately financed, in part due to the very generous rate reduction that our attorney, Brian Gallik, has granted us. Our legal committee, Deb Stratford, Richard Lyon, Charlie Hager & Chuck Broughton, has also put in many volunteer hours. There may yet come a time when we need to appeal for funding, but for the moment we hope we can use our resources for other purposes. In any event, thank you for your support, past and future.
GC variance evaluation criteria
[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=”10600 Bridger Canyon Rd, Bozeman MT 59715{}1-default.png{}Petty CUP & Variances” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]
Here’s a quick update on cell towers.
A recent 911 outage (countywide) emphasized the value of cellular backup when other communication lines are down.
Bridger Bowl is eager to proceed with siting a tower, for installation in this year’s construction season. They’ve rejected the original Atlas Towers proposal of a 130’ structure at the end of A lot, in favor of much smaller towers, higher on the mountain. BCPOA directors have also met with Verizon engineers (thanks to Kent Madin for organizing), who also indicated that much of the canyon could be covered with two towers in the 50’ ballpark. Less height generally means more towers for equivalent coverage, but we think this is a net improvement from a concealment standpoint.
Because the zoning did not previously address the issue, the P&Z commission has initiated a zoning amendment to create a cell tower regulation, and the Zoning Advisory Board has prepared a draft. Unfortunately, the draft has been stalled in legal review for 2 months, with no end in sight.
The BC P&Z Commission meets tomorrow, and has this issue on its agenda for discussion. You may attend, or direct written comments to the commissioners via planning@gallatin.mt.gov.
BCPOA has written to urge the commissioners to provide the resources needed to bring the Advisory Board’s work to completion.
The BCPOA board is pleased to welcome Drew Seessel as a new director, representing the Jackson Creek area.
If you’ve been skiing at Bridger, you’ve probably seen that Bridger Canyon Partners’ remaining piece of the Base Area is up for auction on March 20th.
The web link leads to http://www.conciergeauctions.com/auctions/crosscut-ranch-bozeman-montana-59715/ which lists the property as, “Ideal for use as a gentleman’s ranch, with development & conservation opportunities, over four commercial acres, 2 creeks and direct access to the Bridger and Bangtail mountains with ski-in ability and ski-out potential, the property is a great balance of open meadows, diverse plant life and abundant wildlife. Previously offered for $16M. Selling to the highest bidder on March 20th.”
The 259 acre parcel represents about ¾ of Bridger Canyon Partners’ original holdings. The remainder – a parcel south and east of the parking lot – was sold to Bridger Bowl. $16M would be a bit over $60,000 an acre, which would be well above the price paid by BB, but similar to the price paid in the transfer of 14 acres for Bridger Pines’ sewer system.
We can certainly hope for a conservation-minded buyer, without ambitions for a 500+ unit development. Could we also dream of a way to put much of the property into a land trust or similar mechanism, preserving the headwaters of Bridger Creek while continuing access to recreation?
Some history on the last Base Area development attempt is here. (Apologies for broken links – this is not fully migrated from BCPOA’s old web site.)
Slides from the General Meeting are here.
With overwhelming approval of the membership and board, BCPOA will pursue an appeal of the Petty CUPs and variances. An amendment to the initial complaint will be filed soon. The initial complaint will likely be followed by briefs within a month or two and a court hearing for summary judgment some time later. Because some points of the case are constitutional, BCPOA hopes to recover some litigation costs.
Concerning the interchange about Bridger Pines’ sewage lagoon dewatering, see Gallatin County’s report, Bridger Pines Site Visit 092012. An excerpt:
Discussion & Summary: Again, I did not find evidence of a ‘dam breach’ or massive sewage leak. I was also unable to tell if the existing pump discharge is more than normal for this historically leaking lagoon. But there is water from the pond reaching Bridger Creek after flowing down slope and through meadows a distance of about 1/3 rd mile.
See also the Fire department issues post.
This Thursday, April 11, there will be a Planning & Zoning Commission hearing for a variance to enable conversion of two barns to residential use. The variance is required because the structures lie well inside the 100-foot setback from Bridger Creek. This makes the structures, which predate zoning, nonconforming, and therefore it is not permissible to substantially alter them and change their use.
Sadly, this is another tale of “build first and ask for forgiveness.” Construction commenced without permits, in spite of written notice from the Planning Department that permits were required. The Commission has again failed to take any meaningful enforcement action. This is hard to understand, because the Commission has recently taken enforcement action against other landowners for less serious violations, and is ignoring the very precedent that it spent our tax dollars to set in the MT Supreme Court in the Theken barn case.
This is the second time this variance has come up for review; the first was in January. BCPOA unanimously opposed the variance then, and now. Testimony from the January hearing is in BCPOA comment Petty CUP 2013-01-09.
The plain language of the zoning states that a variance may be granted only when, due to special circumstances of the property, strict application of the zoning deprives a landowner of privileges that others enjoy. In this case, there is no such deprivation, because the property has several acres of buildable land outside of setbacks. Therefore the letter of the law should prevail and the stream setback should be respected.
If you wish to express your opinion on this matter, you can attend Thursday’s hearing, or send a brief note to the Bridger Canyon Planning & Zoning Commission regarding the Petty Variance, at planning@gallatin.mt.gov.
The following memo details problems with permitting and enforcement of the project to date:
BCPOA-Petty 2013-04-09 Exhibits 1-10
BCPOA-Petty 2013-04-09 Exhibit 11 Theken decision
Testimony for the upcoming hearing will be posted here as it becomes available.
BCPOA-Petty 2013-04-09
BCPOA-Petty 2013-04-09 Exhibits 1-10
BCPOA-Petty 2013-04-09 Exhibit 11 Theken decision
BCPOA comment Petty variance 2013-04-11
BCPOA comment Petty variance 2013-04-22
[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=”10600 Bridger Canyon Rd, Bozeman MT 59715{}1-default.png{}Petty CUP & Variances” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email