Category Archives: News

October 2016 P&Z Hearing

Thursday’s Planning & Zoning hearing is a big one, with three Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) on the agenda. (pz_10-13-2016agenda) Also, there will be a separate hearing for a septic variance associated with the Ivey Caretaker’s Residence CUP.

Baker CUP

This is a CUP for an accessory building in Aspen Meadow. BCPOA does not oppose; in fact we’re not certain why a CUP was required in this case.

Update: approved.

aj_bakercup

Lyon Guesthouse

This is a CUP for a guesthouse in Flaming Arrow.

Update: approved.

aj_lyonguesthousecup

That in turn requires a modification of the PUD building envelope. BCPOA thinks PUD modifications must be approached with extreme caution, and must be judged by their net benefits to the public. In this case, the modification seems reasonable because it improves clustering and reduces visibility, without harming other resources like wildlife. BCPOA does not oppose, provided that neighbors and the HOA are also amenable.

aj_lyonbldgenvcup

Simmons PUD

simmonspud2

This application is for a Planned Unit Development that subdivides a 40 acre parcel into three (a 2-dwelling density bonus). The site is east of the controversial Theken barn and the Brass Lantern subdivision below the M. BCPOA has concerns with the proposed siting and other features of the plan, and is working with the applicant in the hope of improving it.

Update: denied.

Application

mg_simmonspudapp

Staff Report

mg_simmonspudsr

simmonspud

BCPOA testimony

bcpoa-comment-simmons-pud-3

Caretaker’s Residence CUP

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