HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-26 Public Comment - D. Carty - Support for Sundance Springs Appeal No. 25769 From: Daniel Cartv
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Support for Sundance Springs Appeal No. 25769
Date: Friday,February 20,2026 9:05:42 AM
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yo>u
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please post this public comment in the folder titled Appeal 25769 of App 25238, Sundance
Springs Lot 2.)
February 20, 2026; 9:05 a.m.
Dear Bozeman City Commission:
I am writing in support of Appeal 25769, which is challenging App 25238, Sundance
Springs Lot 2. Specifically, I am asking the Commission to find in favor of the appellants,
i.e., to uphold the appeal and overturn App 25238.
As the appellants have argued:
1. The Master Plan and Development Guidelines were the binding terms of the PUD
when it was approved. The evidence for this finding is:
a. The Master Plan and Development Guidelines were required elements of the PUD
application (1992 BMC 18.54.080.D);
b. The Master Plan and Development Guidelines were presumed to be binding when the
Commission approved the PUD application (1992 BMC 18.54.080.C);
c. The 1996 order of the Commission stated that the Sundance Springs Subdivision must
comply with Z-95125 and the conditions of approval, which contained the preliminary
Master Plan and Development Guidelines;
Cl. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that the requirements of approved planning
documents cannot be treated as optional (Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 2011 MT91,
P77).
2. The 1996 Commission ordered that proposed uses be added to the Master Plan
(condition of approval #29); upon final approval of the PUD, the proposed uses
became final uses, which are binding.
3. The Development Guidelines incorporate the requirements of the 1992 Zoning
Code by reference. Therefore, the requirements of the 1992 Zoning Code are
enforced pursuant to BMC 38.440.030, BMC 38.440.050, and BMC 38.100.050.A.
4. The building and parking configuration disapproved by the Commission in 2024
continues to violate the Block Frontage Standards and remains ineligible for
departure.
5. The differences between the proposed Site Plan and the conditions described in
the Master Plan and Development Guidelines alter the character of the development
and require amendment of the PUD before they can be approved.
6. The review was pretextual and therefore improper.
As the appellants conclude: "An even-handed application of the current municipal code
reveals that Application #25238 is non-compliant...," and therefore App #25238 should be
overturned.
In addition to (1) upholding the appeal, I ask the Commission to (2) issue an apology—in
real time—to the residents of Sundance Springs for development-review errors made by
the City's Community Development Department and (3) work with the City Manager to
financially reimburse the Sundance Springs residents who paid for the appeal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Daniel Carty
213 N. 3rd Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715