Author Archives: bcpoa

Short Term Rental Survey Results

3 Replies

As we stated before, the latest STR survey results were marred by a number of obvious “sock puppets” with nearly-identical responses purporting to be from different parts of the canyon. This makes the numerical results not worth reporting. Apologies to everyone who submitted for the wasted time; it is sad that this is the level of civility that now passes for normal.

However, a few of the questions preserve some directional validity despite the additional “contributions” and the written responses to the survey are an interesting read, so I’ve shared them below.

BCPOA-STR-survey-results-2023Download

B4 Zoning Text Amendment

2 Replies

Bridger Pines has submitted a text amendment for the B4 zone in the Bridger Bowl Base Area.

B4 base area mapThe amendment would move Recreational Housing and Overnight Accommodations from the zone’s list of Conditional Uses to the list of Permitted Uses. These are essentially Short Term Rental classifications. The primary implication of this change is that a hearing would not be required for issuance of a permit, diminishing the visibility of these proceedings and the opportunity for participation, but also reducing the cost (in time and money) associated with such permits.

B4 text amendment STRs

The proposed change and supporting documents are in the 4D_Bailey_ZTA_PZ_Complete Staff Report associated with the Feb. 8th hearing agenda.

The BCPOA board has not yet had a chance to discuss this application.

Lewis STR Appeal Update

5 Replies

The Lewis appeal was moved from the Jan. 11th P&Z Commission hearing to the upcoming Feb. 8th session (Thursday). We described the issues in the

Appeal and Interpretation of Use

section of a previous post.

There is an addendum to the Staff Report from Jan. 11th, which you can find with the agenda and other supporting documents here.

Public Comment

If you want to comment, you can always submit written testimony to Planning@gallatin.mt.gov – details and some advice under the Submitting Testimony heading here.

You can also comment at the hearing, in person or via Zoom.

Short Term Rental Survey

7 Replies

Update: the survey results are currently on hold, pending development of a valid way to remove some duplicate entries. A couple of people availed themselves of the untracked form to submit many responses, making the results invalid as a measure of general canyon sentiment. About all we can say at the moment is that on the first couple days, when responses were heavy, outweighing repeat submissions, the results looked a lot like they did in 2016, with perhaps a small shift toward a more favorable view of STRs.

Regardless of the outcome of the Jan. 11 hearing, we think it would be better for the zoning regulation to be explicit about STRs, so that permissible uses and distinctions from related classifications like Guest Ranches and Overnight Accommodations are clear. Therefore we’re interested in your opinion, not only for the pending matter, but also a future zoning amendment. Please give us your feedback in the following survey:

https://forms.gle/BK4xySf7iAWQh6sC6

The form has three fairly brief parts. Page 1 repeats some questions that we asked in 2016, when the zoning advisory committee originally drafted an STR standard. Page 2 considers some additional questions related to the recent and pending hearings. Page 3 seeks feedback on the current draft, which is now 5 years old.

Please take a look soon, because we’re just a week out from the hearing.

Background

History

Several classifications that provide for accommodations have been present in the zoning for a long time. In the Bridger Bowl Base Area, the B-districts provide for Overnight Accommodations and Recreational Housing. In the AE district (most of the Canyon), those aren’t available, but there are Guest Ranch and Bed and Breakfast classifications. All of these are conditional uses. Nothing in the regulations mentions short-term rentals by name.

In 2016-2017, the Zoning Advisory Committee (BCZAC) held a series of public meetings to discuss STRs, including a well-attended one at the fire station community room. We also ran a survey via the BCPOA email list. Following those sessions, BCZAC drafted a standard that created a Conditional Use Permit for short term rentals.

In 2021, the Planning Department submitted a zoning amendment incorporating the BCZAC work, but omitting the STR and PUD sections. BCPOA opposed these omissions, but supported the amendment as a whole, for many other beneficial improvements to the zoning language.

Current Status of STRs

The county’s current interpretation of zoning regulations is that STRs are not permitted in most zoning districts:

If short-term rentals are not mentioned in the specific zoning district regulation, they are not permitted anywhere in that zoning district.

The only exception in Bridger Canyon is Overnight Accommodations and Recreational Housing in the Base Area. See the STR FAQ for details. BCPOA had nothing to do with the drafting of this interpretation, and in fact just discovered the county’s web page yesterday.

STR FAQ

BCPOA Position

BCPOA doesn’t have a formal position statement on STRs, and there’s some diversity of board member views. We have certainly never tried to ban them – in fact, we spent a lot of time and money trying to induce the county to adopt a CUP legalizing them.

Generally we think a ban would be difficult to enforce and possibly counterproductive, so it would be better to permit STRs with a few safeguards against nuisances and density creep. No matter what the standards are, we would like to see the adoption of explicit language mentioning STRs, to avoid the ambiguity that has led to the current appeal.

BCPOA’s Role

BCPOA isn’t a regulator; we’re an advocate for Bridger Canyon. From our bylaws:

The purpose of this corporation shall be:

  • to preserve the rural character and the natural beauty and resources of Bridger
    Canyon;
  • to guide and direct orderly growth and development;
  • to maintain, through organization, a definite influence in all matters which may
    affect residence or property rights and enjoyment thereof;
  • to disseminate information regarding zoning requirements and local issues, and
  • to hold regular meetings for open discussions of problems of mutual interest and
    concern

The zoning regulations are administered by the Planning Department. Conditional Uses, appeals, variances and amendments are elevated to the Planning & Zoning Commission or the County Commission.

Short Term Rental Proceedings

Leave a reply

Caretaker’s Residence Revocation

In the November Planning & Zoning hearing, the commission revoked a Caretaker’s Residence CUP, on the grounds that use as a short term rental contradicted conditions of approval and did not constitute bona fide caretaking. This is the second similar instance of revocation in Bridger Canyon.

Materials and a recording of the hearing are here:

https://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall.net/planning-community-development/pages/planning-zoning-commission-public-meetings-agendas

Switch to the “Past” tab. (See navigation screenshots below.)

Appeal and Interpretation of Use

On Jan. 11, the commission will consider a related question: are short term rentals (STRs) a permitted use for a primary residence. As you may recall, the 2021 zoning update omitted a section drafted by the advisory committee that would have provided an explicit classification for STRs, with some standards. That left STRs in a regulatory limbo: are they permitted, because they are an incidental use of a residence, as the appeal contents, or are they forbidden, because unlisted uses are excluded? The zoning provides a way to resolve these questions through an Interpretation of Use (see section 3.8.b. of the Admin regulation, https://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall.net/sites/g/files/vyhlif606/f/pages/adminreg_04_22.pdf ). That is essentially what will happen in the hearing, though it will be in the context of an appeal.

The county’s current opinion on this is clearly presented on its STR FAQ page. In short, unlisted uses are not permitted. In Bridger Canyon, short term rental uses are available only the Base Area, not the AE and RF districts that span the rest of the canyon:

STR FAQ

STR Survey

Regardless of the outcome, we think it would be better for the zoning regulation to be explicit about STRs, so that permissible uses and distinctions from related classifications like Guest Ranches and Overnight Accommodations are clear. Therefore we’re interested in your opinion, not only for the pending matter, but also a future zoning amendment. Please give us your feedback in the following survey:

https://forms.gle/BK4xySf7iAWQh6sC6

The form has three fairly brief parts. Page 1 repeats some questions that we asked in 2016, when the zoning advisory committee originally drafted an STR standard. Page 2 considers some additional questions related to the recent and pending hearings. Page 3 seeks feedback on the current draft, which is now 5 years old.

We’ll share the survey more widely in a few days, but we’re giving email subscribers a first shot at it as you are most likely to have followed these issues over the long term. Please take a look soon, because we’re just over a week out from the hearing.

Update: see the subsequent post for more background on STRs.

Caretakers Residence and Guesthouse Extensions

The Jan. 11 hearing will consider two additional matters: extensions of a pair of Conditional Use Permits for a Guesthouse and Caretaker’s Residence. These classifications no longer exist except as nonconforming uses; they have been replaced by the Accessory Dwelling standard.

BCPOA considers these extensions to be a potentially troublesome precedent. Detailed testimony is here: BCPOA-Appert.final.231212.pdf

Hearing Materials

If you’d like to follow the hearing itself, the agenda is posted at:

https://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall.net/planning-community-development/pages/planning-zoning-commission-public-meetings-agendas

Switch to the “Upcoming” tab. The Staff Report is available via the “Related Documents” link in the agenda. Direct links don’t work, so for convenience I’ve uploaded a copy here: 4.a_Lewis_Appeal_PZ_SR_Complete_1-11-24.pdf (45MB) – but for legal purposes you should consult the county site.

navigate upcoming related documents
The Staff Report is a rather daunting document at 383 pages. However, you don’t need to read the whole thing unless you want the deep background. The key pieces are enforcement officer Megan Gibson’s report, pages 1-12, and the appeal brief, appellant exhibit 2, pages 16-24.

Public Comment

If you want to comment, you can always submit written testimony to Planning@gallatin.mt.gov – details and some advice under the Submitting Testimony heading here.

You can also comment at the hearing, in person or via Zoom.

Fall Weeds

1 Reply

Fall in Bridger Canyon brings a trifecta of purple weeds: Canada Thistle, Knapweed, and Burdock. Each is obnoxious in its own special way (see our weeds page). With all the moisture we’ve had this summer, some weeds are doing really well.

If your weeds are just now blooming, you may still have some time for control. I pulled a couple stray knapweed plants this morning – the rain makes it easy. (Wear gloves – it can be an irritant.) Tall burdock and thistle stems are an easy target for a machete, and it’s kind of fun. Morning light makes them easy to spot, and it’s cool.

However, it’s generally a bit late. As plants go dormant, a lot of chemicals lose their effectiveness. If you mow mature plants, you may just wind up shattering the seeds out and dispersing them by contaminating your equipment.

There’s still one thing you can do …

Mark your weed patches for next year. You can either mark them physically, with grade stakes and surveyor’s tape, or virtually with a phone or GPS. I like the Gaia GPS app, but there are lots of other options, including iNaturalist and Google Earth. Once you have your weeds mapped out, it’s much easier to keep an eye on problem sites, and to direct control efforts at limited areas. This can save a lot of money and time, especially if you’re outsourcing chemical spraying. Accurate targeting also prevents creation of a ‘brome desert’ by chemical destruction of all flowering plants, and a more diverse field may be more resistant to future invaders.

Canada Thistle:

photo_2023-09-05_16-42-16

Knapweed:
photo_2023-09-05_16-42-41

Next year’s knapweed rosette:
photo_2023-09-05_16-41-53

Burdock – easily identified by its giant leaves and 6′ stalks:
photo_2023-09-05_16-40-56

Property Tax Rebates & Assessments

Leave a reply

Collecting your rebate

The enrollment period for collecting your property tax rebate is now open. This involves some absurdly bureaucratic form-filling, but it should be worth it.

Before you start, you may need:

  • A glass of your favorite beverage – this might take a while.
  • Your property GeoCode. This is a 17-digit number on your property tax bill, but you can also look it up on the MT Cadastral map.
    • You must certify that you’ve lived in this residence for 7 months and paid the taxes.
    • An unstated assumption seems to be that rebates are one per household and available only for parcels classified with a dwelling. So, if you have more than one parcel, be sure to get the GeoCode for the principal residence.
  • Your property tax bills (for the total paid in 2022). Be sure to enter the total of both halves of the year.
  • Your property tax rebate notice letter. (You can skip this with no ill effect it seems, but they request an ID number from the letter.)
  • Your social security number. Presumably this needs to match the listed owner of the parcel.
  • Your MT income taxes (for questions about dependents and filing status).

To apply, visit the Property Tax Rebate link at the MT DOR transaction portal.

If you need documentation, or have other property tax questions, they’re administered by the Gallatin County Treasurer’s Tax Division.

The Assessment Mess

You’ve probably seen headlines to the effect that the legislature increased property taxes 40% this year. I’ve seen a variety of numbers between 30% and 43%. The legislature didn’t raise tax rates, but total taxes are likely to go up, because assessments are way up. However, it’s not a simple process: there are offsetting limits on county mill rates that partially compensate for the increased assessment.

Compounding this problem, the state has evidently not been following its own statutory requirements for school levies, which are set by the state. Broadwater County has asked the Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, for an opinion clarifying the situation and constraining the state to follow statute. The Montana Association of Counties has written a scathing letter to Gov. Gianforte, expressing unanimous support for Broadwater’s request, and dismay at the legislature’s failure to manage this situation. Excerpts:

Many of your statements indicate that local governments need to show more fiscal restraint
or “greater fiscal responsibility,” as you have often repeated. You seem to imply that appreciating home values, through your Department of Revenue reappraisal process, should compel local governments to mitigate the impacts when setting mill levies. While this is a great talking point and sounds good in theory, the message is misleading at best and overlooks the fact that county mills are capped by the provisions of MCA 15-10-420. When appraised values increase significantly and the taxable values of the jurisdiction rise, the number of mills we are authorized to levy decreases. Therefore, appreciating values actually decrease our levy authority.

During the legislative session, both the Legislature and your administration had the opportunity to further mitigate the impacts of reappraisal but elected not to do so. The Legislature controls the rate at which Class 4 Property is taxed, and when increases in appraised values for Class 4 Property are forecasted, as they were before the 2023 session, mitigation was an option. The rapid increase in residential property in Montana will result in a TAX REDUCTION for all other classes of property for county mills because we are mill-levy limited. Montana counties will levy less mills next year on all classes of property as a result of reappraisal. Residential property valuation increases will outpace all other classes, and the net result will be a reduction in all other classes because residential properties will shoulder a larger percentage of the total taxable value in any taxing jurisdiction. This is how our tax system works in Montana, and telling local governments to show greater fiscal restraint does not stop the burden from shifting to residential property taxpayers.

The letter further explains in detail how the mill levy formulas work in Montana.

I’m not sure we should hold our breath on this one. Apparently AG Knudsen has at best two weeks to act. He’s broken Tim Fox’s record for fewest opinions written per year, perhaps because he’s too busy defending the TikTok ban. Perhaps he needs a little encouragement:

DOJ email: contactdoj@mt.gov

DOJ contact form: https://dojmt.gov/about/

AG phone: 444-2026

Gov. Gianforte: governor@mt.gov

Gov. phone: 444-3111