[From a memo to the advisory board from Tom Fiddaman, May 2012]
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Following up on our conversation about density last week:
There’s no doubt that the current and original zoning regulations have confusing and ambiguous language describing the calculation of density, permitting [the current] interpretation of 1-in-20 PUD density as a bonus.
However, I think a little application of common sense and reading the original General Plan makes it clear that the design people signed up for in 1971 expected PUD density to be achieved through density transfers.
If the intent had been to provide density as a pure bonus:
- There would have been no need for density transfers, and therefore no market generating income for ranchers, preserving agricultural land through movement of density to more appropriate areas (per the purposes of the section).
- Alternately, one could conclude that the purpose of transfers is to exceed 1-in-20 density, as occurred in Ross Peak. Since there is no explicit description of such a process, there would then be no upper limit to density.
- Full build of the district would provide roughly 2400 homes, for a population of 5000, 3x the maximum population allocation of 1500 in the original plan.
- The Base Area, which was [originally zoned] RF-PD 0.5, would have supported about 800 homes as a bonus. This would surely have been the most spectacularly illegal instance of spot zoning in the history of Montana. (If, instead, this had been implemented via transfers from the rest of the canyon, it would have been a pretty good idea, as Dick Prugh said at the last Base Area hearing.)
These are basically absurd conclusions. Why would the original documents have wasted words on density transfers that served no purpose? Why would Wing have fought tooth and nail to reduce the Base Area density to 200 homes? Why would growth stop with 2/3 of lots undeveloped? Could someone transfer 100 homes to a 40 acre lot in a PUD?
If these are absurd, then you have to agree that the original intent of the district was to facilitate preservation of agricultural land and open space through density transfers, with the underlying 1-per-40 density as foundation. That’s the official position of the BCPOA board, and it resonated with our members at the General Meeting last night. It’s the design in the BCPOA draft, which was extensively reviewed throughout the community over four years. It’s what 78% of canyon residents surveyed think the zoning is, 83% think it ought to be (or lower), and 9 out of 10 owners of 80+ acres (averaging 179) think it should be. It’s why only one out of 84 survey respondents thought a 2:1 density bonus was the way to go.
Tom
Bridger Canyon Zoning Updates 