HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-21 Public Comment - D. Lambert - Gallatin County Rest HomeFrom:Deirdre Lambert
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposing Zoning Amendment 20331
Date:Monday, October 11, 2021 7:06:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ATTN: Chris Saunders
To Members of the
City of Bozeman’s October 11, 2021Zoning Commission
Re: ZMA 20331 of Gallatin County
Dear Commission Members:
I live in and own my home at 1395 Crabapple Drive, approximately 300 feet from the 9.8-acre
lot owned by Gallatin County for which the County seeks a Zone Map Amendment to have itsproperty rezoned from R3 to R4. I submit this letter to provide the reasons why I request that
you reject the County’s application for a Zone Map Amendment.
Before addressing the statutory and legal shortcomings of the Application, I think a fewpreliminary observations about the Application are merited. While zoning is a creature of
statutes, with time, it also becomes a social contract. Individuals make their most importantfinancial choices relying on the existing zoning that applies to their home and the nearby
areas. As we all work to pay our mortgages, we should remember that the existing zoningconstitutes a very substantial dimension of the value of our properties that allowed us to obtain
the mortgages and assure us that our properties will retain their value. Changes in zoning are areally big deal. There ought to be a really good reason to change the zoning applicable to a
property.
The “Description of Project” in the County’s Application justifying the request change thezoning from R3-to R4 is,
The County is considering development of a daycare and some form of housing on the
northern end of property.
(Emphasis supplied).
“Considering”? Before a change in existing zoning is allowed with all of the consequences,both known and unknown and unintended, isn’t it appropriate to ask the applicant to identify a
“need” – not in some generic amorphous sense, but a need for the owner to justify the change. Does the County have a “plan” for the property that creates the need for this amendment?
Simply put, an owner “considering” a use for his property that is not allowed by currentzoning is an insufficient reason to permit something as consequential as an amendment to a
zone map.
Before a neighborhood is subjected to this process, isn’t it entitled to have some concrete idea
of what the actual “development” is that is being “considered”?
With respect to the “daycare” – what actually is being “considered”? Is this a daycare for theemployees working at Gallatin County Rest Home? For county employees? For anyone? Is it
expected that the County will be the owner/operator of the day care? Is it expected that therewill be a commercial enterprise, a chain operator of day cares with scores of children, traffic,
etc.? “Considering development of a daycare” is so vague as to be meaningless and to changea Zone Map on something so vague is remarkably unfair to those who moved into the
neighborhood relying on the existing zoning.
The vagueness concern is even more evident with the County’s “consideration” of “some formof housing” as a justification for amending the zone map. The currently applicable R3 zone
allows some form of housing, actually quite a bit of housing – up to five household units. Soexactly what “form of housing” is the County considering that cannot be accommodated with
what R3 allows? And why can’t the County make R3 multi-units work given the size of theparcel under consideration. Most of the surrounding homes are on ½ to ¼ acre lots. The 5.7
acres of the undeveloped part of the lot land isn’t enough for the multi-units allowed in the R3Zone?
The vagueness of the project description makes the staff review of the “application” with
respect to the “Growth Policy” meaningless. What Growth Policy is not going to permit“some form of housing”? Of-course, the Growth Policy is going to support some form of
housing and given that the city does have an “R4” Zone, obviously the terms of R4 aresupported by the Growth Policy- otherwise the R4 would never have been adopted.
Basically, the staff summary is stating that anything currently allowed by Bozeman zoning can
serve as a basis for a Zone Map Amendment because it has been allowed by the Growth Plan. What is the point of the Zones if they can be changed so easily? Effectively, what is being
stated is that there really isn’t zoning.
The proposed amendment may also violate the state’s concerns about spot zoning. TheMontana Supreme Court has identified three factors to be reviewed and considered to
determine if a zoning proposal is illegal spot zoning:
1. The proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area, 2. The land area is small from the perspective of the number of separate benefitted land
owners from the proposed change; and 3. The zoning change is designed to benefit only one or a few land owners.
As the Court explained,
It is really a question of preferential treatment for one or two persons as against the general
public, regardless of the size of the tract involved.
Little v. Board of County Comm’rs, 193 Mont, 334, 631 P.2d 1292, 1981 Mont LEXIS 784(1981).
While the County is a public entity, that does not mean that its project is in the interest of the
public that will be affected by the requested amendment. Frankly, at this point the anticipateduse is an unknown because of the complete absence of information about what the County
wants to do – other than “some form of housing”? One can speculate that the County wants tobuild high density residential with large multi-units allowed by R-4. If true, then that use
would be very much different from the prevailing use inf the area, violating the first spotzoning factor.
The second and third factors seem closely related. The proposed change has been sought by
and for one owner and its property, the 5.7 undeveloped acres of the parcel (although therewould be nothing to prevent the County from taking down the Gallatin County Rest Home and
redeveloping the 4.1 acres upon which it sits.) With only one owner seeking and benefittingfrom the change, the land area is necessarily small from the number of separate landowners
who might be benefitted by the requested amendment. The requested amendment wouldappear to violate the second and third factors.
It is respectfully suggested that the vagueness of the Project Description submitted by the
County should end any further consideration of this requested change. How does one respondto a request to be allowed to do “some form of housing”? Changing zoning for people who
have made substantial investments requires much more detail, thought and better notice to thesurrounding affected property owners. Please hold the applicant to a much higher standard
than what it thinks is applicable.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank you for your time and public service. I ammindful of the importance of citizens stepping forward to take on these public responsibilities
and am grateful.
Respectfully submitted,
Deirdre C. Lambert