The following files document the proposed Bridger Canyon zoning amendment, to be discussed at the P&Z Commission hearing on June 17, 2021. https://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall.net/planning-community-development/pages/planning-zoning-commission-public-meetings-agendas (Note that this meeting is a week later than normal, so the agenda is not available as of this posting.)
See http://bcpoa.net/resources/contacting-the-county/ for links to the hearing agenda and how to comment on the proposal.
Bridger Canyon Zoning Updates 
Some Q&A on the update follows:
Q
From what I read it appears that a lot of the changes are either to simplify, clarify or update various sections. However, I may have missed something that might be crucial to the Canyon. Are you aware of any changes that significantly impact BC residents? Agriculture? Dwellings on parcels of land, number of rentals on one property or District changes?
A
The biggest issue is what’s omitted here – no change to the PUD or Base Area, which are really the most critical sections. BCPOA will initiate an update to those if the County does not immediately do so.
Probably the most influential change here will be the new Accessory Dwelling standard. On one hand, it dramatically tightens up the current mess of Guesthouses and Caretaker’s Residences. On the other hand, it makes them an LUP – and therefore administratively easier to get. That might mean there will eventually be more, but the Commission has never said “no” under the current standards, except for one completely outrageous case.
Q
I’m coming into the conversation rather late on the proposed changes to the Bridger Canyon Zoning District and wondered if you could help me understand some of the proposed changes.
3.384: why would a guest house not have a kitchen? Every guest house I’ve stayed in has a small kitchenette. I have no interest in building a guest house, just found this unusual.
5.72: why would we remove the terminology “allowed as a matter of right” and replace with “permitted uses”. This is an important distinction. A right does not require permission from a government agency, while permitted uses relies on permission from the government agency. A subtle difference, but telling IMO.
5.4a Minimum Parcel size shall not be less than forty (40) acres, with the exception of parcels created by a PUD in accordance with Section 11. (This seems like a pretty substantial change to add that subdivisions smaller than 40 acres are allowed with a PUD or am I misunderstanding and this is only related to Brider Bowl area?)
11. What is the purpose of removing the entire “Non Conforming Right” section?
SECTION 1520 INTENT. The intent of these zoning regulations is not to prevent particular activities, but rather to regulate and promote the orderly development of the area. Nor are these regulations set up to prevent the full utilization of lands used for grazing, horticulture, agriculture, or for the growing of timber. Nothing in these regulations shall be deemed to authorize an Regulation, resolution, rule, or regulation which would prevent the full utilization of lands used for grazing, horticulture, agriculture, or for the growing of timber. Pretty substantial change to the intent, what is the purpose of removing the last section?
A1
The Guesthouse definition is the existing one, but there will be no new guesthouses. I think the reasoning is as Kent says. The new Accessory Dwelling essentially replaces it (with kitchens, but constraints on size and location).
The 5.72 terminology harmonizes language across districts. At present, most “matter of right” structures still require a Land Use Permit. There’s no practical difference here.
PUDs do currently allow <40 acre parcels. They're supposed to be balanced by open space or density transfers making up the balance. However, the county did tinker with the density in PUDs back in the Base Area fights of the 90s. We're hoping to go back to straight 1-in-40.
The nonconforming right moves to the new Admin regulations.
The strikeout of the agriculture section has no effect, because it's already state law that zoning doesn't regulate ag. So this is just a simplification of the language.
A2
3.384: why would a guest house not have a kitchen? Every guest house I’ve stayed in has a small kitchenette. I have no interest in building a guest house, just found this unusual. One of the underlying principles of BC zoning is preservation of density, normally one Dwelling Unit per 40 acres. Guest Houses were allowed as a Conditional Use, requiring a hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, if they met certain conditions. A Guest House is considered more an extension of the main dwelling than a second residence. As Kent says, one of the more important reasons for this was to discourage renting the Guest House separately from the main dwelling and effectively doubling density. The restrictions on the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit [ADU] have a similar purpose – common utilities and driveway with the main dwelling, within 150 feet of the main dwelling, no separate rental.
5.72: why would we remove the terminology “allowed as a matter of right” and replace with “permitted uses”. This is an important distinction. A right does not require permission from a government agency, while permitted uses relies on permission from the government agency. A subtle difference, but telling IMO. Tom can answer this better than I, but I believe this was done to conform BC’s 1971 language with that in latter-enacted zoning in other districts. It’s a semantic difference without substantive impact – today a Use allowed as a matter of right requires a land use permit from the County, as will a Permitted Use under the new zoning.
5.4a Minimum Parcel size shall not be less than forty (40) acres, with the exception of parcels created by a PUD in accordance with Section 11. (This seems like a pretty substantial change to add that subdivisions smaller than 40 acres are allowed with a PUD or am I misunderstanding and this is only related to Brider Bowl area?) The current PUD regs, which BCPOA hopes to amend, allow a density bonus [reduction in density] within the PUD in exchange for a “significant community benefit,” a subjective term that has been much abused by developers and the County. This isn’t a change in substance, merely a cross-reference to one means of reducing density. We’re working to modify the PUD section. See my attached written testimony on the proposed amendment for more on PUDs.
11. What is the purpose of removing the entire “Non Conforming Right” section? It’s replaced by similar provisions in the new Administrative Regulation referred to in Section 1.6
SECTION 1520 INTENT. The intent of these zoning regulations is not to prevent particular activities, but rather to regulate and promote the orderly development of the area. Nor are these regulations set up to prevent the full utilization of lands used for grazing, horticulture, agriculture, or for the growing of timber. Nothing in these regulations shall be deemed to authorize an Regulation, resolution, rule, or regulation which would prevent the full utilization of lands used for grazing, horticulture, agriculture, or for the growing of timber. Pretty substantial change to the intent, what is the purpose of removing the last section? This is another change with no substantive impact. Montana state law, which trumps local law such as zoning, has always prohibited using zoning to regulate agriculture.