The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-15-25 Public Comment - E. Anderson - Vaquero Land Swap ZMA, App 25035From:City of Bozeman, MT To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]*NEW SUBMISSION* Public Comment Form - City Clerk Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 6:34:31 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. Public Comment Form - City Clerk Submission #:4119994 IP Address:97.228.141.4 Submission Date:06/15/2025 6:34 Survey Time:1 minute, 18 seconds You have a new online form submission. Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login. Read-Only Content Full Name Ethan Anderson Email ethan.martin@hotmail.com Phone (720) 371-6053 Comments See attached letter regarding the rezoning of the regional park. Thank you for your consideration. If you would like to submit additional documents (.pdf, .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .gif, .jpg, .png, .rtf, .txt) along with your comment, you may alternately address comments@bozeman.net directly to ensure receipt of all information. Regional Park Rezoning.pdf Thank you, City Of Bozeman This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 6/15/2025 Bozeman City Commission City Hall 26 N. Willson Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Opposition to Rezoning of Park Land Adjacent to Gallatin County Regional Park Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally oppose the proposed rezoning and development of a portion of land currently zoned as park land (Public Lands and Institutions - PLI) near the Gallatin County Regional Park. The developer's proposal to rezone this parcel for R-3 residential use and add 9 two-story townhomes is unwarranted, unfounded, and contrary to the public interest. Let’s be clear: this land is currently zoned and used as park space. While developers assert that it was "meant" to be rezoned, there is no documented record to support that claim. In fact, planning documents and zoning maps indicate the parcel in question retained its PLI designation even after the land swap associated with the abandoned YMCA project. If there were intent to rezone, where is the legal record? Where is the formal vote? This process appears to rely on assumption rather than due process. Furthermore, the proposed development introduces an unnecessary increase in housing density in an area specifically valued for open space, public recreation, and environmental buffers. The park is one of the few large urban greenspaces in Bozeman and serves thousands of residents - not only as a place for walking, biking, and relaxation, but also as an ecological and visual asset. Slicing off sections for incremental residential development threatens to erode that asset in perpetuity. The fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this rezoning 6-0 is alarming in light of the lack of transparency surrounding this parcel's status. No public notice accompanied the original swap to suggest future residential development on this strip. And yet now, with little meaningful public engagement, the community is being told this is a “done deal.” It is not. Legally and ethically, this request must be scrutinized. Montana’s 2023 passage of SB 382 increased flexibility for zoning changes but also reinforced the importance of site-specific public input. In a court ruling earlier this year, a Gallatin County judge affirmed that residents maintain the right to challenge local rezonings that bypass the public interest or undermine existing land use expectations. This is precisely such a case. The burden is not on the public to prove why a park should remain protected. The burden is on the developer - and this commission - to justify why that protection should be lifted. Based on the public record, that justification is not present. Absent a credible, documented rezoning history, any move to approve this change represents a violation of community trust and a dereliction of public stewardship. As a concerned resident, I urge you to REJECT this rezoning, preserve the park’s zoning integrity, and demand clear public justification before any parcel is reclassified. If the YMCA or developer believe the land should be residential, let them apply like everyone else—no back‑door parking‑lot deals or whispered agreements. Failure to uphold zoning discipline here will trigger greater public backlash, potential legal challenges, and continued erosion of community trust. Sounds dramatic? Maybe—but the alternative is letting precedent stand. If you don’t draw the line now, where will the line be? Respectfully, Ethan Anderson – Bozeman Resident Ethan.martin@hotmail.com From:Ethan Anderson To:Bozeman Public Comment Cc:Wifey Subject:[EXTERNAL]Regional Park - Vaquero Land Swap Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 6:41:05 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. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally oppose the proposed rezoning and development of a portion of land currently zoned as park land (Public Lands and Institutions - PLI) near the Gallatin County Regional Park. The developer's proposal to rezone this parcel for R-3 residential use and add 9 two-story townhomes is unwarranted, unfounded, and contrary to the public interest. Let’s be clear: this land is currently zoned and used as park space. While developers assert that it was "meant" to be rezoned, there is no documented record to support that claim. In fact, planning documents and zoning maps indicate the parcel in question retained its PLI designation even after the land swap associated with the abandoned YMCA project. If there were intent to rezone, where is the legal record? Where is the formal vote? This process appears to rely on assumption rather than due process. Furthermore, the proposed development introduces an unnecessary increase in housing density in an area specifically valued for open space, public recreation, and environmental buffers. The park is one of the few large urban greenspaces in Bozeman and serves thousands of residents - not only as a place for walking, biking, and relaxation, but also as an ecological and visual asset. Slicing off sections for incremental residential development threatens to erode that asset in perpetuity. The fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this rezoning 6-0 is alarming in light of the lack of transparency surrounding this parcel's status. No public notice accompanied the original swap to suggest future residential development on this strip. And yet now, with little meaningful public engagement, the community is being told this is a “done deal.” It is not. Legally and ethically, this request must be scrutinized. Montana’s 2023 passage of SB 382 increased flexibility for zoning changes but also reinforced the importance of site-specific public input. In a court ruling earlier this year, a Gallatin County judge affirmed that residents maintain the right to challenge local rezonings that bypass the public interest or undermine existing land use expectations. This is precisely such a case. The burden is not on the public to prove why a park should remain protected. The burden is on the developer - and this commission - to justify why that protection should be lifted. Based on the public record, that justification is not present. Absent a credible, documented rezoning history, any move to approve this change represents a violation of community trust and a dereliction of public stewardship. As a concerned resident, I urge you to REJECT this rezoning, preserve the park’s zoning integrity, and demand clear public justification before any parcel is reclassified. If the YMCA or developer believe the land should be residential, let them apply like everyone else—no back‑door parking‑lot deals or whispered agreements. Failure to uphold zoning discipline here will trigger greater public backlash, potential legal challenges, and continued erosion of community trust. Sounds dramatic? Maybe—but the alternative is letting precedent stand. If you don’t draw the line now, where will the line be? Respectfully, Ethan Anderson – Bozeman Resident Ethan.martin@hotmail.com