Open Letter To The Broadwater County Commissioners
Author: Jeff Schritz
Open Letter to the Broadwater County Commissioners
Commissioners,
I would like to address some language within the proposed Subdivision Regulations concerning driveways, roads and access.
The broad theme of the subdivision regulations has been and continues to be; small land developer=dumb/bad/sloppy. Big Outside Developer courted by or working with the County=smart/good/tidy. The preferred avenue for a landowner/developer to be considered worthy of recognition by the County is to be a well-heeled local landowner or an influential developer from an outside area that has experienced, or better yet spearheaded, the “organized” growth our State and local governments salivate over. Fees, bonds and the slushy ambiguous kickbacks er.. sorry compensation to the County and their departments associated with this level of development are priced into the project from the get-go. Typically, some major oversite related to water, road maintenance or emergency services is “overlooked” which eventually leads to some form of rate hike or emergency mill levy (suffered equally by all in the tax district) to make up the budget shortfall. That is the status quo…
For the rest of the plebes, you may proceed with development so long as you pay fees and fines to the all-knowing and infallible County for the privilege of the County's review. If said fees are paid and the plan is deemed sufficient, more fees may then be paid by the landowner for the actual approval of the proposal. Of course, the tried-and-true method of City/County employees using their tax-paid position and inside knowledge to navigate the process on paid City/County time for personal gain/benefit is still viable, though only available to a select few.
Anyone curious about the Proposed Subdivision Regulations will find there are 106 pages to this beast (excluding intro and appendix). Most will never read it cover to cover. Of those who do, some factions may find reason for debate. Of them, fewer still will take any action to dispute or rectify the overreach the State and County have extended onto personal property rights. Nickle and diming a prospective small parcel developer through application fees, review fees, consultation fees, certifications, permits and general slow walking seems to be the County’s preferred approach to lessening the burden of applications for small developments (the kind that don’t come with $$ and trinkets pledged to the County)
I can already hear the sighs and practically see Mr. Folkford’s eyes rolling to the point of aneurysm. So, to prevent undo expense to the County Employee Health Plan, I'll keep this argument focused to the issue of roads and driveways as described in the proposed amendments.
From my understanding of the current regulations Definitions #18; a driveway can serve up to 2 dwelling units prior to being required to meet the County standard for roads.
Under the proposed amended regulations, Definitions #21 and # 78(f) changes that requirement to just one dwelling, if a second dwelling exists county road standards must be met. This requirement will create a significant barrier to anyone planning to build an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) to help supplement their income, offset their sky-high mortgage payment or provide a secondary permanent dwelling for Ill or aging friends or family members. Heaven forbid any of our local business owners wanted to put up a shack for The Help in the name of affordable housing (another totem post the County offers frequent lip service toward) without first tuning up the driveway to meet County road specs. So much for affordability…
The double speak continues as the County will be the decider as to which roads are brought into the County maintenance regiment as stated in Definitions #16 but, all roads serving more than one dwelling must meet the County standards. According to the language in Definitions #21. I assume (sorry Dad, you warned me about that word…) as the County grows, the better built and maintained driveways (which now have become de facto county roads) will be chosen as ready built infrastructure the County may then absorb to steer growth to and through preferred adjacent parcels of land as the County sees fit. Of course, no protections or formal compensation for the original owner’s work is implied (thanks to the skillfully crafted language of Section 5 (e) Items A and B) other than the possibility of the coveted green sign bearing their last name. Unless by decree, a more appropriate/desirable name is decided by the County.
Ok, so maybe I'm a little heavy on the snark and cynicism but, I do feel that many these changes and their language need a finer polish if not an outright rejection. I understand these changes come from the Model Subdivision Regulations put out by the State Legislature. I also understand it is the job of our Deputy County Attorney to draft a proposal including these amendments. In light of all these "necessary protocols”, the ultimate responsibility of adoption or rejection falls on you the Commissioners.
Please consider the downstream consequences that these proposed requirements will have on small landowners. These amendments appear to be justified by the same straw-man arguments used to implement the revisions to the Family Transfer Exemption Review process.
The County does have a responsibility to ensure approved growth is managed in a manner that doesn't leave the County short on resources. However, the County’s effort to meet this responsibility must be checked against the sovereignty of individual landowners.
Language that designates private property as open public right of way without any compensation or protections for the landowners is simply unacceptable. Likewise, dictating the quality and specifications of one's private driveway has no place in regulations (marketed to the public as being a “necessary evil”) designed to address for-profit multiple parcel/dwelling residential development.
The best solution to the first point I have raised would be retain the current definition of a driveway which may serve up to 2 dwellings. Many subdivision covenants allow for ADUs along with State Law guaranteeing this right under MCA 76-2-345
Implementing the proposed change in the name of “emergency service access” is a bald-faced end-around by our County planners, designed to restrict property rights and create more individual taxable parcels.
Item number two:
Section 5 (e) G should include specific language to address EXCACTY what the desired benefit to the County is when dictating that all rights of way within a subdivision “will be dedicated for
full public use and access.” See Definitions #69
Is this to ensure access for emergency services? Does it permit Law Enforcement to patrol and conduct surveillance along, through and from these rights of way even though the property is neither owned nor maintained by the County? Does John Q. Public now have carte blanche to hike, exercise or walk his dog along these road easements? Can I use these easements to access public lands through a private subdivision despite the facts none of the roads are maintained by the County? Are the local looky-loos allowed to scope out the neighborhood along these corridors? (Remember now, this goes right to your doorstep if you have an ADU since your driveway is now considered a road...) Maybe a guy can rip around on his dirt bike or sideXside being that it’s a public road and all. Can someone living the #vanlife set up camp for 7, 10, or 14 days depending on whatever ordinance dictates parked vehicles? Maybe some opportunistic Meth Heads can case the subdivision for hawkable merchandise from this right of way without fear of confrontation because, you know, it’s public space right?
There is a lot of gray within that paragraph leaving far too much open to interpretation. It definitely needs to tighten up before final approval.
I appreciate your consideration of the points I have made. I'd also like to say “you're welcome” as I will be unable to present my comments in person.
Jeff Schritz
