Tag Archives: survey

Short Term Rental Survey

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.

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.

Density Survey Results

Leave a reply

Thanks to everyone who responded to the density survey.

Detailed results are here: BCPOA Density Survey A sample:

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.