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?...Comrade?

There is alot 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 “your welcome” as I will be unable to present my comments in person.

Jeff Schritz

406-437-3439

Reference Material

Definitions as they appear in the proposed amended subdivision regulations:

16. COUNTY ROAD IN SUBDIVISION: A road on a final subdivision plat that is dedicated

to public use is not considered a county road until the board of county commissioners

approves by resolution the adoption of the road as a county road. Section 7‐14‐2101(2)(d),

MCA.

21. DRIVEWAY: A driveway is a vehicular access serving no more than one dwelling unit.

Vehicular accesses serving or abutting more than one dwelling unit shall be considered a

road and shall be built to the road standards outlined in these Regulations.

69. PUBLIC ROAD OR STREET: A road or street is public if its right-of-way has been dedicated or acquired for public use.

78. (f) Driveway. A private vehicular access serving no more than one dwelling unit.

Items within Section 5 of proposed amended subdivision regulations:

5(e). Improvement Design

Engineering and survey plans, specifications, and reports required in connection with public and

private improvements and other elements of the subdivision application required by the governing

body must be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Montana or a professional

land surveyor as their respective licensing laws allow in accordance with the MSPA and these

regulations.

If subsequent subdivisions will be served by improvements (roads/streets, fire protection water

supplies, storm-water drainage facilities, mailbox facilities, etc.) that were installed by a previous

subdivider, then the subsequent subdivider may be required to reimburse the previous subdivider

for a pro-rata share of the cost of the improvement(s) if all the following criteria are met:

A. The improvements in question meet the applicable standard; and

B. The improvements do not have to be upgraded.

G. Roadway Dedication and Easements

All roads and easements providing access to and within a subdivision will be dedicated for

full public use and access.

A road on a final subdivision plat that is dedicated to public use is not a County Road unless

the Board of County Commissioners approves by resolution the adoption of the road as a

County Road pursuant to Section 7-14-2101, MCA.

Montana Code Annotated 2023

TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING AND ZONING

Part 3. Municipal Zoning

Accessory Dwelling Units -- Regulations -- Restrictions

76-2-345. (Effective January 1, 2024) Accessory dwelling units -- regulations -- restrictions. (1) (a) A municipality shall adopt regulations under this chapter that allow a minimum of one accessory dwelling unit by right on a lot or parcel that contains a single-family dwelling.

(b) An accessory dwelling unit may be attached, detached, or internal to the single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel.

(c) If the accessory dwelling unit is detached from or attached to the single-family dwelling, it may not be more than 75% of the gross floor area of the single-family dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.

(2) A municipality may not:

(a) require that a lot or parcel have additional parking to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit or require fees in lieu of additional parking;

(b) require that an accessory dwelling unit match the exterior design, roof pitch, or finishing materials of the single-family dwelling;

(d) require a familial, marital, or employment relationship between the occupants of the single-family dwelling and the occupants of the accessory dwelling unit;

(e) assess impact fees on the construction of an accessory dwelling unit;

(f) require improvements to public streets as a condition of permitting an accessory dwelling unit, except as necessary to reconstruct or repair a public street that is disturbed as a result of the construction of the accessory dwelling unit;

(g) set maximum building heights, minimum setback requirements, minimum lot sizes, maximum lot coverages, or minimum building frontages for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than those for the single-family dwelling on the lot;

(h) impose more onerous development standards on an accessory dwelling unit beyond those set forth in this section; or

(i) require a restrictive covenant concerning an accessory dwelling unit on a parcel zoned for residential use by a single-family dwelling. This subsection (2)(i) may not be construed to prohibit restrictive covenants concerning accessory dwelling units entered into between private parties, but the municipality may not condition a permit, license, or use of an accessory dwelling unit on the adoption or implementation of a restrictive covenant entered into between private parties.

(3) Nothing in this section prohibits a municipality from regulating short-term rentals as defined in 15-68-101.

(4) A municipality may require a fee for reviewing applications to create accessory dwelling units. The one-time application fee may be up to $250 for each accessory dwelling unit. Nothing in this section prohibits a municipality from requiring its usual building fees in addition to the application fee.

(5) A municipality that has not adopted or amended regulations pursuant to this section by January 1, 2024, shall review and permit accessory dwelling units in accordance with the requirements of this section until regulations are adopted or amended. Regulations in effect on or after January 1, 2024, that apply to accessory dwelling units and do not comply with this section are void.

(6) The provisions of this section do not supersede applicable building codes, fire codes, or public health and safety regulations adopted pursuant to Title 50, chapter 2.

(7) A municipality may require an accessory dwelling unit to have a will-serve letter from both a municipal water system and a municipal sewer system.

(8) Nothing in this section prohibits a municipality from adopting regulations that are more permissive than the accessory dwelling unit provisions provided in this section.

(9) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "accessory dwelling unit" means a self-contained living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling of greater square footage that includes its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and complies with or is otherwise exempt from any applicable building code, fire code, and public health and safety regulations adopted pursuant to Title 50, chapter 2.

(b) "by right" means the ability to be approved without requiring:

(i) a public hearing;

(ii) a variance, conditional use permit, special permit, or special exception; or

(iii) other discretionary zoning action other than a determination that a site plan conforms with applicable zoning regulations;

(d) "municipality" means an incorporated city, town, or consolidated city-county that exercises zoning powers under this part; and

(e) "single-family dwelling" means a building with one or more rooms designed for residential living purposes by one household that is detached from any other dwelling unit.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 502, L. 2023.