[0:22] Yes, I do.

[0:32] Thank you.

[0:36] » Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. [clears throat]

[0:50] » Bring it up for us.

[1:26] Okay. >> Yeah, sure.

[1:30] Make it easy and comfortable for you guys.

[1:33] » Thank you. Long day for all of us.

[1:40] Get the truth there.

[1:54] » [clears throat]

[2:26] » I don't think you are. >> You're just

[3:28] Don't make me do this.

[3:54] questions because

[4:34] Okay, it's 9:00, so we'll call the special meeting of the Madison County

[4:38] Board of Commission. Order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. The

[4:41] pledge in the back of the room. Please join us.

[4:44] Aliance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic stands. One

[4:51] nation under God and justice for all

[4:59] [clears throat]

[5:05] present. Commissioners are here.

[5:11] We uh this meeting was created as a result of

[5:16] the application of the resolution which

[5:22] put before the broken recorder and the was approved the signatures were valid

[5:29] and the percentage was correct. So before we start the hearing, I just

[5:34] have and some of you have it already, but I'll read it to you. Public comment

[5:40] guidelines. If you wish to speak, please line up at

[5:44] the podium. Before you begin your comment, state your name and address. If

[5:50] you're speaking on behalf of other people, groups, or entities, please

[5:54] state the nature of that representation. Public comments by those physically

[6:00] present will be heard first, followed by public comments from those attending

[6:05] virtually. All comment should be directed to the

[6:09] chairman and commission, not to other audience members or applicants. You may

[6:14] have questions. Understand that this public hearing is

[6:18] not a question and answer session. It's an opportunity for you to provide public

[6:23] comment to the commission on the matter described in the abcast.

[6:28] Speakers are encouraged to support a previous speaker's comments, but not

[6:33] repeat the same comments. If you agree with what a pre previous speaker has

[6:37] said, simply state you agree with the comment and move on to the next issue

[6:42] you wish to address. The commission wishes to hear from as

[6:46] many people as possible. To that end, no person will be permitted

[6:52] to speak a second time until everyone who wishes to make a public comment has

[6:57] been provided the opportunity to do so. Do not interrupt others as they are

[7:03] speaking. Additionally, there should be no applause, whistling, cheering, or

[7:09] booing during or after any particular call. Such conduct is unduly disruptive

[7:16] and will not be tolerated. The purpose of this public hearing is to

[7:21] discuss the federal matters before the commission and nothing else. Your

[7:26] comments must be limited to this topic. The commission is not collecting public

[7:32] comments or any others. Once the chairman is closed to public

[7:37] comment, no further comments are received. At that point in time, the

[7:41] public has asked the sort of meeting observed deliberations of the

[7:45] commission. The commission may have questions to

[7:49] confirm what a particular member of the public said and may ask that member to

[7:54] clarify. However, that does not mean more comments are received. If members

[8:00] of the public continues to disrupt the commissioner's discussions that a

[8:05] disruptive individual asked the meeting with that I'll start the public hearing

[8:14] of the chief mountain citizen initiating zone district at 93.

[8:23] I move to incorporate all written comment to uh the record received since

[8:28] the submission of the petition so we can avoid duplication of effort. Second.

[8:34] » Okay. So we have a move to the second that we record the written comments that

[8:38] we have received so we do not have that duplication. Any further discussion?

[8:45] Hearing none. I'll call the vote. Mr. Hi.

[8:48] » Can you speak up so people in the chat can hear? People in the back can't hear

[8:52] you. >> Okay. I'm sorry.

[8:54] » No. >> Mr. Gen.

[8:58] » Hi. [clears throat] >> Cherries.

[9:02] Okay. May proceed. >> Thank you. Hello. My name is KS and I'm

[9:08] a property owner in Raol Pass as well as executive director of Preserve Ra Pass,

[9:13] a Montana nonprofit 501c3. My address is 7 Moonwater Lane, Cameron,

[9:21] Montana. And today, uh, for purposes of information, we're talking about the

[9:27] Sheep Fountain Citizen Initiated District, which is in the dark green.

[9:34] Everybody can see which one we're talking about today.

[9:42] First and foremost, thank you commissioners and county staff for your

[9:45] work with the Reynolds Pass community for over three years on these planning

[9:49] and zoning efforts. The proposed citizen initiated zoning districts in front of

[9:54] you today represent this multi-year effort by Railsfast property owners for

[9:59] to protect their future and their property. Everyone in this room, those

[10:05] joining us online, and those citizens who couldn't participate today, have a

[10:10] keen interest in their future, their famil family's future and the future of

[10:14] Madison County. That shared interest is our common

[10:18] ground. And there is no better common ground from which to respectfully

[10:22] request that the Madison County Commissioners approve the Sheep Mountain

[10:27] Citizen Initiated Zoning District CISD before you today. Due to the similarity

[10:32] of the Rainless Pass area, its rural residential pattern of development,

[10:37] landscapes, wildlife, water concerns, and surrounding pressures for commercial

[10:41] development. The data and relevant comments you hear today regarding Sheep

[10:46] Mountain and the two other CICD in Rainol's Pass may appear duplicative,

[10:50] but the data and comments are true for each critically loc.

[10:56] Each CICD before you today is necessary for the public interest or convenience,

[11:01] as you will hear from much of the public comment.

[11:04] Consider this. In our lifetime, we've seen a good deal of change. Farms and

[11:09] ranches use heavy equipment instead of plow horses and mules. Internet access

[11:15] allows people to work anywhere, including more desirable rural locations

[11:20] like Madison County. Big Sky sprang from forested public lands and scrub brush

[11:25] ranches became a skiill community and is now host to commercial and resort

[11:31] development. Multi-million dollar homes and movie stars spilling into Madison

[11:36] County. There is no infrastructure to support this scale of development in

[11:40] Randol's past now or in the future. Montana's population has more than

[11:46] doubled from 477,000 in 1945 to 1,144

[11:52] 694 in 2025. In our children's lifetime, the greater

[11:58] Yellowstone ecosystems population where Madison County sits at the heart and

[12:02] hosts the Missouri headarters is forecasted to reach between 763,000

[12:08] and 846,000 by 2050 to60

[12:14] where these people live and the corresponding impacts to Madison County

[12:18] are what is on the table today. Today you have the opportunity based upon the

[12:23] petition of a super majority of citizens in the sheet mountain cicd to protect

[12:28] the agricultural and rural residential of this area of Reynolds Pass. Reynolds

[12:33] Pass is located This is a map of Madison County. This is Madison Valley and

[12:40] Reynolds Pass is located right here. G is about right there.

[12:47] You can tip the scale in favor of the affected property owner's quality of

[12:51] life by adopting the sheet mountain cisd which will protect its limited natural

[12:56] resources, water, wildlife, wildlife habitat, agriculture and open space and

[13:02] sustain our economic drivers of agriculture, hunting, fishing, and

[13:06] tourism. These are the reasons the sheep mountain cisd is necessary for the

[13:11] public interest. The Montana legislature created the CIZ tool in 1953 for

[13:17] citizens to petition for zoning. Those representatives understood the citizens

[13:22] right to and interest in protecting their property.

[13:26] In an August 13, 2024 public meeting, the commission said they would like to

[13:31] see signatures for zoning. Again, a super majority of those signatures have

[13:36] been provided. Today, the community of the proposed sheet mount CICD asked the

[13:40] commission to adopt this CICD and the proposed land use planning regulations

[13:46] which protect the existing agricultural and rural residential development

[13:50] pattern existing uses and allow citizens to request exceptions and to amend the

[13:55] regulations. This is in the public interest for convenience.

[14:00] The sheet mountain cig and zoning development pattern and uses clearly

[14:04] adhere to and are consistent with the 2025 Madison County policy land use

[14:09] objectives. MC3 preserve existing open space and protect valuable agricultural

[14:15] land. MC4 plan for responsible, reasonable and managed growth and

[14:20] development. MC5 protect the public health and safety of county residents.

[14:25] MC6 support zoning efforts. MC7, protect private property rights. MC8, encourage

[14:33] municipal growth versus urban sprawl. And the 2025 Madison County growth

[14:38] policy environment objectives. MC9, protect wildlife habitat. MC10, preserve

[14:44] natural resources and protect water resources. MC11 support growth in

[14:49] agriculture, forestry, recreation, and tourism, and small service-based

[14:54] businesses in a manner that does not impact established residential

[14:58] communities. Discourage development that would financially strain public

[15:03] services. MC13 support infrastructure improvements within incorporated and

[15:08] unincorporated communities. For these reasons, among others, the public's

[15:13] interest or convenience require adoption of the sheet mountain cicd and zoning

[15:17] regulations. The proposed regulations aim to protect

[15:21] the rain's past development pattern by preventing high impact commercial

[15:24] business from bringing highdensity human activity to remote agricultural and

[15:29] rural residential lands in this area with little to no p public

[15:34] infrastructure. High density development and corresponding population increase

[15:38] are proven to disrupt wildlife corridors, increased consumption of

[15:42] limited water resources, and increased traffic, a public safety hazard. People

[15:47] are attracted to the rural lands and access to the Madison River available in

[15:51] Reynolds Pass. However, more people in the banks and in the waters of the

[15:55] Madison River and already burdened fishery is not sustainable. This river,

[16:00] the lifeblood of the Madison Valley, provides an economic benefit to a wide

[16:03] swath of the county and it is in the public interest and necessity to protect

[16:07] it. It is also in the public interest and necessity to protect the lands that

[16:12] surround it. Wildfire is top of mind every year and Reynolds Pass has been

[16:16] fortunate this year. The proposed CICD and regulations reinforce Madison

[16:21] County's fire hazard mitigation practices by containing future parcel

[16:26] sizes at 40 acres maintains density consistent with the current development

[16:30] pattern. Maintaining density at this level is critical given the limited

[16:35] public resources in this area of the county and their distance from emergency

[16:39] service providers which is definitely in the public interest or convenience.

[16:45] The proposed sheet mountain cis regulations are forward-looking, not

[16:49] retroactive. If adopted, land owners will not be surprised by disruption of

[16:53] their peaceful enjoyment of their land by a casino, resort, hotel, or RV park,

[16:58] or other high impact commercial use completely at odds with the character of

[17:02] this area. The CICD and zoning regulations will provide a predictable

[17:07] future. Some of these lands have covenants, many

[17:11] of which prohibit commercial activity, but may not be effective at addressing

[17:15] the same taxes addressed by the CICD. Citizens are aware from previous

[17:21] development applications before the planning board and commissioners that

[17:24] the county cannot be involved in covenant disputes. Madison County does

[17:29] not currently have tools to address impacts from land use. It only has

[17:33] authority when subdivision is proposed. The CICD is a tool to address impacts

[17:38] from land uses that adversely affect property owners. Another reason why the

[17:42] public interest or convenience require adoption of the sheep mountain cisd

[17:48] zoning has a long history in this country to protect public health,

[17:52] safety, and welfare by separating industrial and residential areas. And

[17:56] there is long-standing precedent for part one zoning in Montana. We've

[18:01] identified 136 CIZD in Montana. For reference, 88% of these CIC ZDS do not

[18:08] bear CI, excuse me, CICD levies. And for those that do, the levies are typically

[18:13] 1% of a property's taxable value. With these zoning regulations, property

[18:18] owners within a CICD have a chance to protect their property interest. Please

[18:23] do what is clearly in the public interest or convenience and adopt the

[18:27] sheet mount CICD regulations. Thank you. And I'm gonna hand a copy to Sarah for

[18:33] the record. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[18:40] » Good morning. My name is Maline Mason. My address is 97 Gulliard A Boseman. I'm

[18:46] here at preserve Reynolds Pass. I come to you today not as a property owner,

[18:51] but simply as a recreator of Madison County and Reynolds Pass. But I stand

[18:55] before you as part of the Rainol's Pass community, a community of people who

[18:59] welcomed me in with open arms as I've joined in their advocacy for protecting

[19:03] their area. Madison County is part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, one

[19:07] of the largest nearly intact tempered zone ecosystems on Earth. Wildlife

[19:12] flourishes here in a unique and remarkable fashion. This is meaningful

[19:16] to me as someone who wishes to see much of the biodiversity today extend into

[19:21] the future of tomorrow and as someone whose household depends on a freezer

[19:25] full of game come winter. The greater Yellowstone ecosystem expands outward

[19:29] with Yellowstone National Park as its core. As the gy expands west into

[19:34] Madison County, the ecosystem blends into the high divide headarters, an area

[19:39] characterized by vast sagebrush grasslands unique due to its high

[19:43] elevation. The high divide provides a vital

[19:46] connection between the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and broader

[19:49] regions, hosting seasonal migrations of elk, pong horn, and deer. Each winter,

[19:54] Madison Valley supports approximately 2,000 pong horn, 9,500 elk, and 1500 mu

[20:00] deer. These animal summer ranges, however, are often outside Madison

[20:05] Valley. This is where Reol's Pass is key. Elk and Pongghorn move south

[20:09] through Madison Valley and Reol's Pass to access their summer ranges. Reynolds

[20:14] Pass is a low elevation mountain pass narrowing down to just a mile wide in

[20:18] sections. This narrow but vital point of connectivity combined with the risk of

[20:23] animal movement bottlenecks from obstructions such as homes, roadways,

[20:27] and fences makes Reynolds Pass a critical area to protect.

[20:32] The land surrounding Reynolds Pass offers a complex mix of meadows, diverse

[20:36] forest types, productive grassland, and sage brush rangeand all in close

[20:40] proximity. The Madison, Gravali, Centennial, and Henry's Lake Mountain

[20:44] ranges come together in the subset of Madison Valley, making Rean's Pass

[20:48] unique travel corridor through which species can disperse throughout their

[20:52] historic ranges. In addition to acting as a travel corridor, Reynolds Pass

[20:56] hosts plentiful habitat, providing summer range for pong horn and winter

[21:00] range for bigorn sheep. The Madison County growth policy recognizes Reynolds

[21:04] Pass as prime wildlife habitat and ma wildlife migration pathways. The policy

[21:09] states, "Residents of the South Madison enjoy a quiet and rural lifestyle with

[21:14] plentiful open space and access to outdoor recreation." Those residents are

[21:18] here with us today advocating for Sheep Mountain, CICD, to protect this very

[21:23] quiet rural lifestyle and open space that benefits both residents and

[21:27] wildlife. The zoning district regulations prohibit commercial

[21:31] development to limit high density development as an effort to preserve

[21:35] open landscapes. Buildings are permitted on 40 acres to maintain unulate

[21:39] movement. In a recent study released by University of Wyoming in partnership

[21:43] with US Fish and Wildlife Service and multiple other federal and state

[21:46] agencies, they studied the use of space between homes by elk, moose, pong horn,

[21:51] and mu deer in rural areas. In doing so, the researchers were able to identify

[21:56] ranges of space between homes that were too narrow for undisturbed use by

[22:00] wildlife. The study concluded that maintaining spacing between houses

[22:05] greater than 500 meters will likely facilitate unulate movement. While

[22:10] placement of home on parcels is a greatest factor in achieving these

[22:13] widths needed to maintain unulant movement, we can observe that 40 acres

[22:17] is a conservative approach to the parcel size needed. 40 acres in a line results

[22:22] in a total distance of 2550 meters. If those 40 acres were in squares next to

[22:27] one another and homes are located on the outer sides of their parcel, it would

[22:31] roughly roughly be 800 meters between homes, facilitating the necessary width

[22:36] to allow for unimpeded unbulance. While larger parcel sizes would fully

[22:41] preserve a functional habitat, 40 acres is a conservative approach that reflects

[22:46] the minimum threshold intended to preserve basic wildlife without imposing

[22:50] drastic constraints on land use. These CICDs allow residents in the

[22:55] county to shape how an area grows as well as protect the land, the culture,

[22:59] the water, and the wildlife as it stands now. These regulations are not to hinder

[23:04] residents and their neighbors, but rather to uphold a community and its

[23:07] values. Montana was coined the last best place, attributed to vast wilderness and

[23:12] sprawling landscapes and sparse population. While I'd argue Montana is

[23:17] still the last best place, I fear we cannot pretend that growth is not

[23:20] coming. The growth is here as we've seen in places such as Flathead and Gallatin

[23:25] County. While Madison County is known for vast working landscapes and a high

[23:29] amount of land and conservation easements, Madison comm excuse me,

[23:34] Madison County is not immune to the pressures that these other towns have

[23:37] experienced. This shouldn't come as a surprise seeing as the infamous

[23:41] Yellowstone Club is located within Madison County. I urge you to listen to

[23:45] the citizens before you and to create Sheep Mountain Zoning District to uphold

[23:50] the values that Matson County and its residents stand for. Thank you for your

[23:54] time.

[23:58] » There Sarah. Thank you. >> So that I'm clear, is this public

[24:03] comment? Is [clears throat] it my Okay. Not done

[24:07] this before. I wasn't certain if this is proper opportunity for me to come up. My

[24:12] name is Philip Waters. I'm a property owner at to be determined upper S slide

[24:15] rock road. I reside at 6353 Delta Drive in Churchill, Montana. I've been a

[24:20] resident of Gallatin County since 2012. My wife and uh four or five of my kids

[24:25] live in the same home in Churchill for the past 14 years. Not an MSU Bobcat and

[24:29] an Mustang. I'm a Madison Bobcat born and raised on the other side of on the

[24:33] other Madison County on the other side of the divide. Bear with me with a small

[24:36] disproportionate amount of time getting to know me. It is gerine because it

[24:40] relates to the fact that I am an individual citizen having value values

[24:45] congruent with the community that's in support of this initiative. But I I do

[24:49] not support any special interest and I do not support this initiative.

[24:53] [clears throat] I believe I'm allied with Amy Omo

[24:56] Honduro's family. I don't know if she's here or she emailed me just yesterday

[25:00] where some of us are just getting to know about this. I don't know if that

[25:03] was her case as well. Um um as for me uh I I believe they're also adversely

[25:08] affected by this. My grandparents gushed about their drives around the Norris

[25:12] Hempin West Loop so frequently that I was well familiar with this area of

[25:15] Montana before I fell in love with the Madison River when I was 10 years old. I

[25:19] searched my entire adult life to find my slice of heaven which we found in Sports

[25:22] Guns Paradise on Slide Rock Road in 2019. I exhausted all of my savings to

[25:26] secure a small patch of dirt for my kids to inherit. Reserve Reynolds Pass

[25:30] originally proposed that our parks will be included in the sheet mountain zone.

[25:33] I attended the online meetings and was not shy about my skepticism. As of this

[25:37] morning, it remains unclear to me of whether or not we've been included or

[25:40] have been gerrymandered out of the region. My recent calculation is that I

[25:44] were included, there would be an insufficient percentage of land owners

[25:47] for the initiative to pass. The initiative, however, would still affect

[25:50] us almost as much as everyone else. The neighbor immediately to my east, the M

[25:53] neighbor immediately to the north, and the forest land to the southeast of our

[25:57] property are all included in it proposed map. Um, just to indicate that I believe

[26:01] I am right here in that little gerrymandered area that's not included,

[26:05] but there is a new map online as of today where the screenshot shows this,

[26:09] but the actual PDF shows that all of my neighbors to the west have been included

[26:12] in this initiative. It is not clear to me and it has not been clear to me up

[26:16] until last night whether or not I was included and whether or not I've been

[26:19] taken out so that it will pass. Um, I work from my home. Let's see. Um,

[26:27] so I'll be affected by this initiative, but it's out of my control whether I get

[26:30] a vote. I believe that if I were to include the denominator, my obsession

[26:33] might cause a measure to fail, but if I object, I could be written out of the

[26:36] boundaries and not be considered. So, I work for my basement of my home

[26:40] full-time. I'm also the assistant speech coach of Manhattan High School. And so,

[26:44] I'm inspired by the philosophy of a free America that empowers society,

[26:47] self-governance, and defense of inalienable human rights like equality.

[26:51] me. Um, I like to think that my voice today is as compelling as a

[26:54] well-coordinated political maneuvering, which this appears to be with respect to

[27:00] the with the people that are the prisons of Raml's past. Um, they're very

[27:04] organized and much more powerful than I am to a certain extent. Um, in the 1776

[27:08] pan from Common Sense, Thomas Payne wrote, "Society is produced by our wants

[27:12] and governance government by our wickedness. The natural state of

[27:16] Reynolds Pass community is a shared culture having desired to preserve the

[27:20] nature around us. That is a promise proposed by the preserve ran past

[27:24] initiative. Observe with me that things are not always what they seem. First, I

[27:27] want to acknowledge the valor of preserving the land and applaud the

[27:30] persistence of the organization of Kay and her supporters. I do not object in

[27:33] principle to what is being presented as it's being aimed to preserve natural

[27:36] resources. I do find however a paradox a conflict in how this is achieved. My

[27:41] main point is that while presently I do not see an imminent threat presented by

[27:44] my neighbors who I love and I find to be of like thinking, the threat that has

[27:48] been I've been made to imagine is a boogeyman corporation with money and

[27:51] power who would rob my neighborhood of the peace we enjoy. But what I see is a

[27:54] professionally b branded well-resourced, connected, and persistent political

[27:58] action group which is constructed to magnify the voices of support and de

[28:02] diminish the voices of disscent. Between work, raising my family, and being

[28:06] involved in my community, I do not always have time to keep a pulse on

[28:09] what's going on with this initiative. I'm civically involved. However, and if

[28:12] you have not heard my objections, it would be because the the the

[28:16] [clears throat] initiative is designed to redirect those elsewhere or

[28:21] gerrymander me out of the picture. They do have a comments that they can

[28:24] receive, but those are for support and awareness of the initiative, which has

[28:28] been persistent these last many many months. Um, I I'm running short on my

[28:33] time, but the the point that I want to make is that anything that makes us

[28:37] perceive that we need a government action to protect us from our neighbors

[28:41] will forever encumber us with legal bindings that we who wish for freedom

[28:47] will find difficulty escaping over generations of time. So, I find it

[28:52] ironic that anybody would support it and and the and the neighbor to my east has

[28:57] said, "But what else can we do?" And I would suggest that what else we can do

[29:01] is we can wait and see and we can think about it rather than encumbering

[29:04] ourselves today. And I would suggest that it's going to take somebody's voice

[29:08] that has already been in favor of this to change their mind to buy us some time

[29:12] so that we can talk about this. And that's my position. Thank you.

[29:23] » Good morning. My name is Keith Shine uh with my wife Barbara Lures in 25 Big Ben

[29:30] Road in Cameron. Our property is not in the proposed CICD district, but we're

[29:37] here to support its passage because we see such zoning as the only true hope to

[29:43] protect our property value. We're not rich people. We've worked and saved all

[29:48] our lives to be able to afford at retirement a small home on the Madison

[29:53] Valley. Our life's savings are tied up in that home. It is our legacy to our

[29:59] children and it is the entirety of our legacy.

[30:04] Our property value is tied to our immediate development, Sundance Bench.

[30:09] However, it is also inextricably tied to Madison Valley. If the rural, agrarian,

[30:16] and residential character of the valley changes because of unchecked commercial

[30:21] development, our property value will decline and our legacy will be

[30:27] diminished. If the Madison River is harmed by

[30:31] commercial development, our property value will be decimated.

[30:37] What if across the river from us there isn't the driftwater cove RV park but a

[30:44] threestory Hilton hotel? Our views will be poisoned.

[30:50] Where will the hotel get its water from a depleted Madison River? And if the

[30:57] river has too little water for fish and the very tourists the hotel was built to

[31:02] built for stop coming, what happens to our property values? If ever, it will

[31:09] not come back in our lifetime. The official growth plan for the Madison

[31:14] Valley recognizes these threats, identifying Madison County as a quote

[31:21] recreationist dream for fishing, hiking, and hunting. It speaks of the quote rich

[31:27] agricultural landscape with some of the most notable rivers in the nation. The

[31:33] guiding principles of the growth plan are to preserve open space, protect

[31:38] wildlife habitat, preserve natural resources, specifically water, and to

[31:44] respect our agricultural and rural character. The goals of that growth plan

[31:49] recognize the need to support zoning efforts.

[31:54] The goals of preserve rentals pass are completely consistent with the growth

[32:00] plan. We want the same things. The proposed 150 space RV park on Highway 87

[32:08] was just the first sold over our bow. There will be more threats, larger ones

[32:15] coming with regularity and we as citizens can't be expected to fight them

[32:20] peace meal. We need governance. We need protection of zoning. Given

[32:28] current and projected growth of the Madison Valley, the fact that we have no

[32:33] zoning is both willfully blind and shameful.

[32:38] Please pass the zoning districts. Please protect our home. Thank you.

[32:58] I'm uh first going to speak for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. I'm not a

[33:07] employee of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. I'm an ameritus professor from MSU who's

[33:12] run the fish and wildlife program uh for the last 20 years up there and has

[33:17] trained most or many of the natural resource professionals and state

[33:22] wildlife biologists. Um >> what's your name?

[33:25] » In state, >> what's your name?

[33:28] » State your name. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm I'm Dr. Robert

[33:31] Garrett. I'm also a resident of of the Reynolds

[33:37] Pass area and I I'll speak as a resident after I've um spoke with uh representing

[33:45] fish, wildlife, and parks. So, they provided two letters in it for this

[33:50] initiative for the the various zoning districts. The first letter was written

[33:55] uh and sent um you August 15, 2025, and it was signed by Dr. Kelly Profett,

[34:03] who's the region three supervisor. I'm not going to read all the letter because

[34:08] some of it doesn't pertain to your decisions today. I'm just going to read

[34:11] the uh the pertinent first first paragraph.

[34:18] Okay. Dear Madison County Commissioners, Attorney, and Director of Planning,

[34:23] thank you for the opportunity to comment on the wildlife values of the proposed

[34:27] Reynolds Pass zoning districts. The Sheep Mountain proposed zoning district

[34:32] holds important wildlife values and therefore Montana Fish, Wildlife, and

[34:35] Parks supports the proposed zoning districts. The Reynolds Pass area is

[34:41] important geographically. It provides an open and grassy lower elevation access

[34:46] over the Continental Divide bounded by steep mountains and forested hills.

[34:53] These natural features make it an attractive border for unullet migrating

[34:57] to summer cabing and spawning ranges and recent research has demonstrated the

[35:04] importance of this area for migratory elk and throng horn. Although we have

[35:10] not yet been able to collar mu deer in this area, we suspect that they would

[35:15] show similar migratory pathways. Migratory behavior is an important life

[35:20] history component of the wildlife in this area. And attached to this letter

[35:27] are several maps of the the pong horn and elk migrations through the Reynolds

[35:32] Pass area to support the statements that that Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks um

[35:39] has made in this letter.

[35:43] Um, that's all I need to do to represent Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. And

[35:50] now I'd just like to make a a personal statement as a resident of the Reynolds

[35:54] Pass area. My address is 75 uh Highway 287 South Cameron.

[36:02] When my wife and I were looking for a place to put down our roots 45 years

[36:06] ago, we spent yet several years looking for a small plot of land to build a home

[36:12] in western Montana where we've been living for the past 10 years, primarily

[36:17] in the Bitterroot Valley. But we've been watching the rapid conversion of one

[36:21] ranch after the other into housing developments and commercial enterprises

[36:26] that we feared would change the rural agricultural character of the valley. So

[36:30] after several years of of looking, we turned our attention to the upper

[36:35] Madison Valley where we had some family and some friends. The valley offered

[36:40] everything we were looking for. Ready access to public lands and waters,

[36:45] abundant fish and wildlife, open agricultural landscapes, and welcoming

[36:50] neighbors, but not too many of them. We purchased 20 acres in the Reynolds Pass

[36:55] area, built a modest home over several years, moved in and started our family

[37:01] at the Andis Hospital in 1986. Educational opportunities and developing

[37:07] careers forced us to become nomadic for about 10 years. Uh, but we were finally

[37:12] able to uh settle in southwestern Montana in 19 permanently in 1994.

[37:20] » [clears throat] >> Madison Valley is a special place that

[37:22] has for the most part escaped the rapid and mostly uncontrolled development that

[37:28] has dramatically changed the characters of other Montana valleys like Flatheads,

[37:34] Bitterroot, Paradise, and more recently the Gallop valleys. But it seems Montana

[37:39] is now on the map. folks that are seeking to escape more urban

[37:43] environments and the valley's ranchers, rural

[37:47] residents, and wildlife are going to have to share um the valley and its

[37:52] resources with more people. Change is inevitable and we're not opposed to

[37:58] developing and new folks moving in. In fact, we are newcomers um compared to

[38:03] the valley's ranchers, many of which have been in the in the valley for many

[38:07] generations. But we want to see the valley maintained

[38:12] of at least the mountains path area maintained in its rural agricultural

[38:16] character while accommodating more people and an expanding economy. The

[38:22] beauty of valley, the open spaces, abundant fish and wildlife and unlimited

[38:27] recreational opportunities are cherished by most of the residents of the valley

[38:32] and desired by those who want to become the residents.

[38:36] My family doesn't want to see the valley lose those attributes over the coming

[38:40] decades because of uncontrolled development and neither do a lot of our

[38:44] neighbors in the spass area that have put time, money, and energy over the

[38:49] past three years developing the citizen zoning initiatives we are considering

[38:54] here today. The proposed zoning districts are modest

[38:58] and are generally less restrictive than many of the subdivision covenants we

[39:03] reviewed when we were searching the valley for our home. The valley is a

[39:08] wonderful place to live and work because of the people that have lived here have

[39:12] taken care of it. As as more people move in and development pressures increase,

[39:18] it is important for the county to help moderate and direct future development

[39:24] so that we don't become yet another bitter root or flathead valley and lose

[39:28] what we all cherish in this place. I encourage you to support the citizen

[39:33] zoning petition you are considering today to help continue the legacy of the

[39:38] longtime residents of the valley that have given us what we enjoy here today.

[39:43] Thank you.

[40:02] » Good morning, commissioners, and thank you for listening to my comments today.

[40:05] My name is Samantha Arbagas. My husband and I are property owners in Rainol's

[40:09] Pass and I am also a board member with Preserve Rains Pass.

[40:14] There are many reasons we should all do the right thing and

[40:18] plan growth more thoughtfully in this area, but I will speak to just one.

[40:22] Montana's citizen initiated zoning statutes were created by the legislature

[40:27] so the people could petition for zoning to assist in protecting their property

[40:31] and have input as to what development occurs around them. State statutes

[40:37] uh statute states that zoning must be in public interest or convenience. There's

[40:41] no denying that promoting public health and safety and general welfare meets

[40:45] that requirement. The purpose and intent of our zoning district and zoning

[40:49] regulation are to protect public health and safety, a compelling governmental

[40:53] interest by guiding growth and development in the area. The primary

[40:58] land management goal is to provide reasonable guardrails to prevent

[41:01] commercial development from encroaching through Madison Valley's gateway in the

[41:05] south and spreading through agricultural and resident rural residential lands.

[41:10] Commercial and highdensity development brings more people. More people equals

[41:14] more emergencies and a greater need for response by fire, ambulance, and police.

[41:20] This affects public health and safety and places additional demands on Madison

[41:24] County's already limited services to an area over an hour away. There are no

[41:29] manned fire stations in Madison County. There are no volunteers assigned at fire

[41:34] station 2 located in Rain's Pass on Highway 287. This means all emergency

[41:39] response has to come from Enis, a distance of 45 to 48 miles when

[41:44] considering the boundaries of Sheet Mountain District.

[41:48] Madison Valley Medical Center currently has two ambulances assigned to the

[41:51] entire val valley. Often one ambulance will provide patient transport to other

[41:56] areas, which then only leaves one ambulance to respond to emergencies. If

[42:00] a call came in from Reynolds Pass, the total response time could be two hours

[42:04] or more and may critically impact the rest of the citizens of the valley. I've

[42:10] heard that at times there may be only one active ambulance for the entire

[42:13] valley while the other is out for repairs and maintenance. Police response

[42:17] is variable and impossible to predict because deputies are mobile and the

[42:21] sheriff's office in Virginia City is 58.3 miles from the edge of proposed

[42:26] sheet mountain cis orders. Long response times are a risk to public

[42:31] health and safety in Rain's Pass. Summer traffic, wildlife, weather, and road

[42:36] conditions can further already slow response times and create additional

[42:40] dangers for first responders. Adding commercial development with the

[42:44] associated increase in people and activities exacerbates this concern for

[42:48] public safety. More fire department responses to the area is also a strain

[42:53] on the volunteer firefighters who have jobs, families, and commitments.

[42:58] [clears throat] Highdensity remote development significantly increases cost

[43:01] to the county, i.e. taxpayers in the form of maintenance, repair, and

[43:05] replacement of emergency vehicles. On August 13, 2025, the Horn Fire burned

[43:10] 3,000 acres of grassland and was a glaring example of how quickly fires can

[43:15] become catastrophic during red flag extreme fire weather. Emergency crews

[43:20] responded from Madison County, Gallatin County, Island Park, DNR, US Forest

[43:24] Service, as well as deputy sheriffs and ambulance. Had this fire jumped the

[43:29] highway into the residential area, which it came very close to doing, the outcome

[43:33] would have been tragic. With this level of response, it left little to no

[43:37] coverage for the rest of the county. The following day, on August 14th, a

[43:41] lightning strike started yet another fast-moving fire in Norris Hill, and

[43:46] crews were then quickly pulled from one site to the other.

[43:50] Another example is when Bob Glassman experienced a severe medical emergency

[43:53] in his Mile Creek home and nearly died due to a 90-minute response time. Simply

[43:58] stated, there are limited health and safety resources available to these

[44:02] remote areas, and the distance is too great to support increased commercial

[44:06] development. In Madison County's updated growth policy, it states, "Protect the

[44:11] public health and safety of county residents, support zoning efforts, and

[44:16] specific to Rain's pass, it notes, support zoning efforts, preserve

[44:20] existing open space, preserve wildlife, preserve natural resources. Purpose and

[44:25] intent of these two CIZDS are to guide growth and development which are clearly

[44:31] in both the public interest and convenience. I I ask you to support and

[44:36] pass the CIDs CDs as presented because we have met the statutory requirement.

[44:41] Thank you.

[44:47] » Thank you.

[44:52] » [clears throat]

[44:55] » My name is Larry Ray. I live at 42 Elles Ranch Road in Cameron. So I'm not part

[45:01] of the specific zoning districts, but if I was, I would

[45:07] uh I would welcome it. I didn't do a prepared monologue. I mean, there's a

[45:11] lot more eloquent speakers in terms of fire and water and wildlife and, you

[45:17] know, people that have much more knowledge. What I will say is that I'd

[45:20] ask you guys and the commission to envision what happens to the valley if

[45:26] we don't try to understand and control growth or at least try to preserve what

[45:31] we have up there and if we don't implement some kind of breaks from

[45:36] what's going on or some kind of guard rails which we all accept. We all have

[45:40] to get our septics approved. We we want to control wild

[45:46] weeds. We can't just build a house on the river. I mean, we allow uh society

[45:51] to impose constraints on us to protect things that society deems important.

[45:57] What I see is that we've got a group of people that live in the area that have

[46:01] come to you of their own initiative and their own time and their own work and

[46:05] have asked you to consider putting some reasonable guard rails on what's going

[46:10] on in the southern Madison Valley. This isn't about government control because,

[46:17] you know, pure private property is a myth. We all pay taxes. We all rely on

[46:22] federal highways and federal systems. We we rely on water projects at the federal

[46:27] governments. We're we're already in it together. And if we want to preserve

[46:33] what we have in that valley, if we don't do anything, then I would ask you to

[46:38] articulate what your vision is for what happens to the southern end of the

[46:42] valley. I think I think what we see right now is that that's not going to be

[46:46] a pretty picture. But I would ask you to approve this and and at least put some

[46:52] guard rails in place that are reasonable and and are not overly prohibitive and

[46:58] ex and allow um you know allow some thoughtful uh constraints on what we

[47:04] what we do in that portion of the valley while not limiting people that want to

[47:09] build a home or newcomers coming to the valley. In the absence of that, I would

[47:14] challenge you to tell us what your vision is. If you just arbitrarily say

[47:19] this is no good, give us give us a path forward to help protect what we consider

[47:24] and we're all standing here and deem being important. If you just reject it

[47:29] out of hand without some alternative or without some vision and you and you say

[47:34] to us that we're going to wait until the valley's fully developed before we

[47:38] develop a plan that seems unacceptable to me. So in the absence of uh adopting

[47:45] something, provide us a proposal if if in fact you don't think this is the

[47:50] right way to go. Because I think we can all agree that this isn't the world of

[47:56] 30 years ago. It's not the world of 40 years ago. It's the world today. And

[48:00] this this area is changing and growing quite fast. And it would it would seem

[48:06] to me logical that we we get in front of that and our medicine says that uh you

[48:12] know cure a prevention is better than a cure.

[48:16] You know growth is the philosophy of a cancer. So somewhere in the middle you

[48:22] know we need a plan. We need to have some belief that you know that we're

[48:27] going to protect what we all moved here for what's important to us. So my

[48:31] challenge to you is, you know, in the absence of supporting this by the people

[48:35] who came here, did all the work argued that this is what they want. If if

[48:41] you're not in support of that, give us a vision of what you are in support of.

[48:45] I'd also suggest that doing nothing uh is a decision in itself and not a very

[48:51] good one. That's all I have to say. I guess the last thing is I, you know, I

[48:57] strongly support the initiative. I'm not part of it. If I was, I'd still strongly

[49:01] support it. Okay. Thank you.

[49:13] Greetings. Good morning. I'm Linda Owens. I wear a few different hats. um

[49:19] project director for the Madison Valley Ranchline Group, which is a locally led

[49:24] nonprofit uh supporting keeping ranching viable, egg viable in the Madison

[49:30] Valley. It's also means that we tried to work together to keep our wildlife

[49:36] connectivity improvement. Um in the last few years, we've tried to also become

[49:43] more of try to net the community together. Uh we work with the river

[49:49] foundation. We all are here for one reason or another. We love this place is

[49:54] the key I would say for most of us. There are those of us that are just in

[49:59] it for the money. We're just buying lots or whatever as investments.

[50:05] So I will work backwards from what everyone is saying. I'm not reading from

[50:09] my notes. I had eye surgery yesterday so I still can't read well. Pat Todd will

[50:14] help me with that part. But I just want to say that

[50:18] we're looking at this is citizen initiated. But let's go to the other

[50:22] side of this which is where just this last year we had talk about this being

[50:28] the corridor for an interstate.

[50:33] How will that impact us? Everybody's going to have a say on that, too. So,

[50:40] I'm just saying that change is inevitable, but that doesn't mean that

[50:44] we stand back. It's like it's like trying to work cattle in a corral and

[50:48] just opening the gates and let them go wherever. You want to be able to sort

[50:53] them out and get them where you want them. Otherwise, you've got chaos and a

[50:57] wasted day. Well, we don't need a wasted valley.

[51:00] Um, I'm very very proud of this group up there and the C community whether

[51:06] they're for or against it. They're showing up. They're interacting.

[51:11] In the early 2000s, North Meadow Creek out of Mallister, we tried to do uh

[51:17] citizen initiated zoning. We got shot down after three years of working really

[51:23] hard. So, but what I will say was very few of them were local people. It was

[51:29] people coming in from out of the county, some of them out of the state

[51:35] having a say in our future and how we were able to live there. So, please keep

[51:41] your minds open and realize that the majority of these people care so much

[51:45] about where they live and change is constant. If we say, "Well, it's too

[51:50] late." I remember when I was on the planning

[51:53] board and uh Lonesome Dove came in and it wasn't even addressed

[52:00] logically. Everybody laughed that lived here in the county because they said who

[52:04] in their right mind would live there. Well, you go down there and look at who

[52:08] in their right mind lives there. They may not be in their right mind, but that

[52:11] place is very full of people. So, I'm going to let Pat come up and read this

[52:18] part of it. I apologize. I cannot read. This is Pat Todd. She is National Parks

[52:23] Conservation and she is also part of a group that I am just a member in called

[52:29] Madison Passages which is trying to address the increased traffic through

[52:33] the Madison Valley from where it meets at 87 comes to 287

[52:40] and we're trying to find ways to solve and keep our wildlife in the valley.

[52:46] Thank you. >> Thanks, Linda. My name is Pat Todd. I

[52:50] work in this valley and I'm part of Madison Passages. Um, speaking for

[52:54] Madison Passages, we support the adoption of the proposed citizen

[52:58] initiated zoning districts in the Reynolds Pass area. We are a community

[53:02] partnership working to improve safety um for people and wildlife. As Linda said,

[53:07] and um we know that Reynolds Pass is identified by Montana Fish Wildlife and

[53:11] Parks as critical wildlife linkage connecting Henry's Lake Flats and the

[53:16] Madison Valley and surrounding ecosystems. Alk meal, deer, pong horn,

[53:20] moose, and bears and other species rely on movement routes through their daily

[53:25] and seasonal habitat to access forage and breeding areas. And maintaining

[53:29] these connections is really vital to the long-term health of our wildlife

[53:32] populations. So, as development pressure increases, habitat fragmentation and

[53:37] increment activity can disrupt this movement of wildlife, reducing

[53:42] connectivity of habitat and affect the wildlife collision risks on the highway.

[53:47] Collisions with wildlife pose safety risk to motorists, create economic costs

[53:51] for folks in the valley, and result in wildlife mortality. So protecting

[53:56] Reynolds Pass is a key pathway for wildlife will be important part to any

[53:59] solutions aimed at reducing the collisions and maintaining the wildlife

[54:03] connectivity. We know that the Madison County growth

[54:07] policy recognizes the importance of preserving wildlife habitat and

[54:10] migration corridors and that the proposed CICDs are consistent with those

[54:15] goals and reflect the communitydriven effort to balance future development

[54:20] with the protection of the area's heritage and wildlife resources. Madison

[54:25] Passages believes that maintaining connectivity in Reynolds Pass is in the

[54:28] public interest. that protecting migration corridors and connected

[54:32] habitat today will help our efforts to further reduce wildlife vehicle

[54:36] collisions um while supporting wildlife passage. So, we appreciate the

[54:40] significant effort that local land owners and community members have

[54:43] invested in developing developing these proposals and respectfully encourage the

[54:48] county commissioners to adopt the proposed citizen initiated zone

[54:52] districts. Thank you for your time.

[54:59] Good morning. My name is Lisa Roberts. Um uh I don't live in Reynolds Pass. I

[55:05] actually live in town on a small plot there. Um I'm just I just wanted to make

[55:09] a few comments about um zoning being a tool. Um in Nis we have seen u our

[55:18] zoning code has not been updated since 1996. And we have seen where uh not

[55:23] having zoning zoning or an updated zoning um can lead to issues. Um zoning

[55:30] is fundamentally about giving citizens a voice and how their community grows and

[55:33] changes. >> Excuse me. Can you speak up?

[55:36] » Oh, I'm sorry. Zoning is a fundamentally uh about giving citizens a voice and how

[55:42] their community grows and changes. Citizen initiated zoning is especially

[55:47] important because it starts with the people who live in the area. It allows

[55:51] residents to identify what they value and establish reasonable standards to

[55:55] protect those values. Um, without zoning, communities are often

[56:02] end up often reacting to individual um, developments one at a time. Um, zoning

[56:09] regulations can be amended over time. Um, which, you know, NIS is looking at

[56:14] doing now, uh, looking to amend those and to meet our needs. Um, and I just

[56:21] want to briefly say that Madison County is experiencing growth and development

[56:26] pressure. The question is whether or not change will occur, but whether or not

[56:32] the citizens will have the meaningful tools to help shape that change for

[56:36] their community. I would encourage you, I'm in support of

[56:42] the citizen initiating something.

[56:52] Good morning. My name is Tom Schroeder. My wife and I live at 144 Continental

[56:57] Divide Ranch Road in Cameron. Um, first of all, I'd like to thank you, Mr.

[57:02] Chairman, commissioners, and staff for the opportunity to speak to you today

[57:06] about what is obviously a very uh important issue to many of us in the

[57:10] valley. Um, like I said, I live in Continental Divide Ranch. We are a part

[57:15] of the Sheep Mountain uh zoning district. I'm speaking in support of all

[57:20] three of the districts. Um these districts are defined uh by the rivers,

[57:26] its open land, and the wildlife that depend on both. Uh the corridors and

[57:31] habitat that CIZDS are designed to protect aren't just scenic backdrops.

[57:37] They're working ecosystems. their support. They support fisheries, big

[57:41] game migration, and water quality that every resident and every visitor to this

[57:46] valley ultimately relies on. These requirements don't just protect a

[57:52] resource on a map. They preserve the open space, the clean water, and the

[57:57] wild character that makes these districts feel like Madison County in

[58:02] the first place. When that habitat is impacted by unregulated development, it

[58:06] doesn't come back. We have one chance to get this right and these proposals is a

[58:11] sound this proposal is a sound reasonable measured way to do it. I also

[58:17] want to speak to something I think deserves some real weight today and that

[58:20] is 60% of the residents in three affected districts signed a petition in

[58:26] support of these requirements. Getting 60% of support on anything in this

[58:32] county is hard because of significant shared property owners here that are

[58:37] part-time or seasonal. Many of them are difficult to reach uh

[58:43] by mail or phone and many don't find out about the local land issues until

[58:47] they're arrive back at their homes. Under those conditions, 60% isn't just a

[58:53] bare majority. It's an over it's overwhelming support. In most local

[58:58] votes or surveys, getting even a third of eligible participants to respond at

[59:03] all is considered a strong turnout. To get 60% of the residents, many of them

[59:08] hard to reach and many of them absentee. To actively

[59:12] sign on in favor of zoning restrictions on their own land tells you something

[59:16] important. People who signed on to these districts understand what's at stake and

[59:22] they want it protected. Uh just as importantly, every citizen

[59:26] had the opportunity to take part in shaping these requirements and a great

[59:30] many of them did, attending meetings, submitting comments throughout the

[59:35] process. And while um some may object to the timing or the need of having these

[59:42] uh requirements in these districts, I haven't heard anybody object to the

[59:48] goals and objectives of the zoning district. Um, this wasn't support that

[59:53] was gathered after the fact. It was built uh from the start. So, with that,

[59:58] I urge you to adopt the CICD requirements as proposed to protect

[1:00:02] Madison County's critical resources and wildlife habitat and to honor the clear

[1:00:08] will of the residents who took the time to make sure their voices were heard.

[1:00:12] Thank you very much.

[1:00:23] My name is Sandra Olaf Coparuda and I am part of the Olaf Ranch at 850 Highway

[1:00:29] 287 in Cameron. Chairman Nye, Commissioner Gilman, and

[1:00:34] Commissioner Todd. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. My

[1:00:38] mother, brother, sister, and I own the Olaf Ranch, more than 1,800 acres in the

[1:00:42] Madison Valley, extending from the Madison River up to the public lands,

[1:00:48] managed by the Forest Service and the BLM. My grandfather, John Olaf,

[1:00:52] homesteaded the main property in 1898, only a few years after Montana became

[1:00:58] state. Our family has cared for this land ever since with the hope that it

[1:01:02] could remain in the family and be responsibly managed for years to come.

[1:01:07] I want to make clear that our opposition to these proposed zoning districts is

[1:01:11] not opposition to conservation, responsible growth, wildlife protection,

[1:01:16] or preserving the rural character of this community. Approximately 1500 acres

[1:01:20] of our ranch are already in conservation ement held by the Forest Service. We

[1:01:25] provide public access along the Madison River, participate in block management

[1:01:29] hunting, and use grazing practices that allow elk cing to occur undisturbed

[1:01:34] while protecting our waterways. We have made these commitments

[1:01:38] voluntarily because we believe in being good stewards of the land. But

[1:01:42] supporting convers excuse me supporting conservation does not necessarily mean

[1:01:48] supporting citizen imposed zoning. We also believe strongly in private

[1:01:52] property rights and in allowing land owners to have a meaningful voice in

[1:01:56] determining how their own property is used. [clears throat] Today's decision

[1:02:00] is bigger than one property or one family. It establishes a precedent for

[1:02:04] how part one citizen initiated zoning districts will be evaluated in Madison

[1:02:07] County. Meeting the 60% petition requirement allows a proposal to come

[1:02:12] before the commission. It does not by itself established that creating that

[1:02:16] district is in the public interest and convenience.

[1:02:20] A zoning district places regulations on everyone within its boundaries,

[1:02:23] including land owners who do not support the petition. I respectfully ask that

[1:02:27] the interests of property rights of all affected landowners be given equal

[1:02:31] consideration. I believe the commission should ask what

[1:02:35] specific public problem are these regulations intended to to solve and are

[1:02:40] those restrictions necessarily to address that problem? If the goals are

[1:02:46] to protect agriculture, wildlife, water, open space, and rural character, are

[1:02:51] there existing laws, conservation programs, voluntary agreements, or other

[1:02:54] less restrictive approaches that can be accomplish these goals?

[1:03:00] Before imposing regulations on all property owners within the proposed

[1:03:03] boundaries, landowners deserve regulations that are clear, legally

[1:03:07] sound, enforcable, and fair. There's also the question of cost and

[1:03:11] administration. These districts will require county resources and involvement

[1:03:15] from multiple departments. Before determining that they are in the public

[1:03:18] interest, the commission should understand the long-term staffing,

[1:03:22] enforcement, and financial requirements. Who will administer these regulations?

[1:03:26] What will enforcement cost? Will additional staff or equipment be

[1:03:30] necessary? And what costs or fees will ultimately passed on to land owners and

[1:03:34] taxpayers? Finally, please consider the precedent

[1:03:38] and cumulative effect of these three proposed districts. How will zoned and

[1:03:42] unzoned properties interact? How will enforcement work across those

[1:03:46] boundaries? And what standard will today's decision establish for future

[1:03:50] when zoning petitions throughout Madison County?

[1:03:54] I believe citizen initiated zoning can be a useful planning tool when affected

[1:03:58] land owners genuinely collaborate on regulations that are broadly supported,

[1:04:03] clearly written, legally sound, and beneficial to the community as a whole.

[1:04:08] But there is a significant difference between landowners voluntarily agreeing

[1:04:10] to restrictions on their own property and having those restrictions imposed on

[1:04:14] land owners who do not agree. Our family believes strongly in conservation,

[1:04:18] responsible land management, and preserving the character of this valley.

[1:04:22] We also believe strongly in private property rights. Those principles do not

[1:04:25] have to be in conflict. I respectfully ask the commission to look beyond the

[1:04:29] petition percentage and determine whether these proposed districts are

[1:04:32] necessary, legally sound, enforcable, administratively practical, fair to all

[1:04:38] affected land owners, and truly in the public interest and convenience. If

[1:04:41] those questions cannot be answered affirmatively, I respectfully ask you to

[1:04:44] not create for your time and consideration.

[1:05:02] Hello, my name is Diane Olaf and along with my mother, my sister who just

[1:05:07] spoke, my brother and I are the owners of the Olaf Ranch. Our property property

[1:05:12] is located within the proposed Big Horn Crossing CIZD which is not on today's

[1:05:18] agenda. However, I feel compelled to comment on the other proposed CIDs

[1:05:23] because I believe the decisions being made today could establish a precedent

[1:05:26] that may ultimately affect the Madison Valley as a whole. Our grandfather

[1:05:31] homesteaded this ranch in 1898. For 128 years, our family has been proud to be

[1:05:38] part of the Madison Valley. We take our responsibility as stewards of this land

[1:05:43] very seriously. Our goal is to maintain the property in a sustainable manner and

[1:05:48] keep it in our family for generations to come.

[1:05:53] Every major decision we make is considered with that goal in mind. As

[1:05:57] part of that commitment, 20 years ago, we placed the majority of our property

[1:06:01] under a conservation easement. That easement significantly restricts

[1:06:06] commercial residential development. We have noticed that some properties

[1:06:10] included in the proposed CIDs are also already protected from development

[1:06:14] through conservation easements. This raises two important questions for us.

[1:06:19] First, if a property is already protected by a conservation easement

[1:06:24] that accomplishes the stated goals of the proposed CIZD,

[1:06:29] why does that property need to be included in the district?

[1:06:32] Second, if the requirements of a CIZD differ from or potentially conflict with

[1:06:38] an existing conservation easement, which restrictions would take precedence,

[1:06:43] conservation easement or the CICD? Our other concern is the administration

[1:06:49] and financial impact of these proposed districts. Where will the funding come

[1:06:53] from to administer these districts? Who will be responsible for overseeing them?

[1:06:59] And most importantly, will property owners within these districts be subject

[1:07:03] to increased property taxes or other financial obligations? I want to be

[1:07:08] clear that our family supports the goal of protecting the Madison Valley, its

[1:07:12] wildlife, agricultural lands, and open spaces. Our concern is whether

[1:07:17] additional zoning restrictions are necessary on properties that are already

[1:07:21] protected from development. Our family has voluntarily taken

[1:07:25] significant steps to protect our land. We want to understand why additional

[1:07:29] zoning restrictions are necessary, how those restrictions would interact with

[1:07:33] our existing conservation easement, and what financial obligations would

[1:07:37] ultimately be placed on land owners. I respectfully ask the commissioners to

[1:07:41] consider these questions carefully and to provide clear answers to land owners

[1:07:45] before moving forward with these proposed districts. Thank you for your

[1:07:49] time, consideration.

[1:07:58] Good morning. My name is Gail Among Handra.

[1:08:02] Property is located on Sage Brush Way in Cameron. We spend our our winters in

[1:08:09] mind, Nevada, which is our home. I've been coming to the Madison Valley uh

[1:08:14] since my youth. Um, in 1988, my husband Tom and I were fortunate enough to

[1:08:21] purchase property in the upper Madison River corridor. As a family, we cared

[1:08:27] deeply about preserving the character and the natural wonders of this

[1:08:32] beautiful place and being good stewards of the land. Our property is not

[1:08:38] included in any of the three proposed CIZDs being discussed today, but I do

[1:08:45] have experience with the preserve Reynolds passport group and I have

[1:08:50] concerns about the use their use of the CICD process.

[1:08:55] In July of this year, I was contacted by two preserverless past representatives.

[1:09:02] They shared with me their success about the CICD process and then in the same

[1:09:08] breath I was told that we our property is next.

[1:09:15] They shared that the subdivision across the river from us uh wanted to impose

[1:09:20] the same regulations that are before you today on our property.

[1:09:25] Our property 228 acres is undeveloped. The subdivision across the river has

[1:09:34] approximately 140 lots of 20 acres or less,

[1:09:39] many of which are developed, but only a small fraction of that subdivision would

[1:09:44] be included in this freshly proposed CICD.

[1:09:49] This raises the question of how are these boundaries drawn? Are there are

[1:09:55] there objective planning principles that determine which properties are included?

[1:10:00] What are those principles for the districts before you today? In the case

[1:10:05] of Sheet Mountain, I believe that those boundaries have already shifted since

[1:10:09] inception. In August of this year, the preserve

[1:10:14] rentals pass quote kickoff meeting for this initiative that included our

[1:10:19] property was supposed to include affected property owners. Um yet none of

[1:10:25] the um affected property owners from the subdivision across the river were

[1:10:30] present. We raised questions and we were told in

[1:10:34] summary that CIZDS are inevitable and that they would eventually extend from

[1:10:40] Apoose Creek or the rest stop at Lion's Bridge all the way to the Idaho border.

[1:10:47] We were told that we had no choice. This is this experience has acted as the

[1:10:54] impetus for us to participate in this process. Today I would like to

[1:10:59] understand how a patchwork of citizens initiated zoning districts organized by

[1:11:05] one well-funded and professionally run group can adequately reflect public

[1:11:11] interest or convenience of the communities that they are seeking to

[1:11:15] govern. Drawing from my recent experience, I

[1:11:20] also wonder about the ways in which proposed regulations have been presented

[1:11:25] to land owners who signed the petitions. Is a signature collected in the spirit

[1:11:31] of conservation indicative of a land owner who was

[1:11:35] informed of the regulatory financial burden of the CIZD.

[1:11:41] Finally, I have questions about the inclusion of public lands,

[1:11:46] public roads and public rivers, CICD. Likewise, I wonder about the regulatory

[1:11:53] because there's necessity of including already highly regulated properties

[1:11:58] either by conservation easement or HO. You know, why are these additional

[1:12:03] layers of regulation necessary? In the case of the occlusion of public

[1:12:08] lands, why should or how can uh this regulatory burden be borne by such a

[1:12:14] small subset of a landowned communities or population I should say.

[1:12:22] In summary, preserve rentals past group frequently calls the CICD process

[1:12:28] voluntary zoning. It's not.

[1:12:33] We have voluntarily been good stewards of our land as have many of the affected

[1:12:37] land owners in the um proposed CIZDS before you today. I ask that you

[1:12:44] consider pro private property rights on balance with the interests of preserving

[1:12:50] this past. I feel as though this group has a solution in such problem. Thank

[1:12:57] you for your consideration.

[1:13:03] Good morning. Um, my name is Amy Alejandro. I'm Gail's daughter. Our

[1:13:07] property is in Seed Bush Way in Cameron, Montana. I spent every summer of my

[1:13:11] childhood here trying to fly fish poorly and reading books by the banks of

[1:13:16] Madison River. The integrity of this piece of Montana has been deeply

[1:13:21] instilled in my values and in the values of my siblings and has shaped our

[1:13:26] relationship with nature much more broadly. We all want to protect this

[1:13:30] incredible environment. Conservation is a lotable goal and it's an important

[1:13:34] goal, but conservation and individual liberties are not mutually exclusive.

[1:13:40] This is a precedent setting moment for Madison County. Today, I urge you to

[1:13:44] look beyond whether the petitions met the required threshold of property owner

[1:13:48] support and instead look carefully at what these regulations actually do. The

[1:13:54] question before you is not whether conservation is a worthwhile pursuit,

[1:13:58] but it is whether these specific restrictions imposed through this

[1:14:01] particular process truly serve the public interest and convenience.

[1:14:07] I don't understand why three different districts are being subject to the same

[1:14:11] regulatory language. These districts have different patterns of ownership,

[1:14:15] development, and land use, but they are being subjected to essentially the same

[1:14:20] set of highly restrictive standards. If these communities have different

[1:14:24] circumstances and planning needs, then the regulations should reflect those

[1:14:28] differences. On the other hand, if the circumstances are similar enough to

[1:14:33] justify the same regulations, then I think that raises the opposite question

[1:14:37] of why is this collection of small, highly restrictive CICDs the appropriate

[1:14:42] planning tool rather than a broader county-led pursuit that considers the

[1:14:47] region as a whole. Good planning should respond to the place being regulated.

[1:14:52] Fundamentally, every restriction on the use of private property should have a

[1:14:56] reason behind it. If we impose a 40acre minimum, stricter water body setbacks,

[1:15:02] or limits on accessory dwellings, we should be able to identify a direct

[1:15:06] corresponding benefit to public health, safety, or welfare. I have not seen

[1:15:11] evidence in this record demonstrating that these restrictions are necessary or

[1:15:16] that each restriction will produce a meaningful return on environmental

[1:15:19] protection or quality of life to justify the burden that it imposes. Without that

[1:15:25] connection, these districts look less like regulations tailored to

[1:15:28] demonstrated community needs and more like a regulatory template in search of

[1:15:32] a place to to apply it. I think that the clearest indication

[1:15:38] that these regulations are not sufficiently tailored to the communities

[1:15:41] that they seek to regulate is the extraordinary level of nonconformity

[1:15:45] that they create. In these districts, nonconformity is not the exception. It

[1:15:50] is the rule. In the Sheep Mountain District, by my count, there are roughly

[1:15:54] 54 parcels. Only five of those parcels meet the 40 acre minimum acreage

[1:15:59] standard contained in the regulation and three of those are already protected by

[1:16:03] conservation easement. That means that the commission is being asked to adopt a

[1:16:08] minimum parcel standard that bears almost no relationship to the existing

[1:16:12] pattern of private land ownership in Sheep Mountain. While there has been a

[1:16:16] lot of discussion about existing uh properties being grandfathered,

[1:16:19] grandfathered does not mean unaffected. These regulations still impose

[1:16:23] additional conditions and restrictions on non-conforming properties, creating

[1:16:28] additional regulatory burdens for both land owners and the county. I don't

[1:16:32] think that having non-conformity automatically means that a regulation is

[1:16:36] unreasonable. But when a zoning district is so disconnected from the community

[1:16:40] that it regulates that almost every existing parcel fails to meet its basic

[1:16:45] dimensional standard on day one, that should demand a pretty compelling

[1:16:49] justification for how that minimum [clears throat] standard produces a

[1:16:52] measurable benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. Lastly, I want to

[1:16:57] briefly address cost. The county planning department has raised questions

[1:17:01] about the staff time, equipment, administrative capacity, and enforcement

[1:17:05] resources that these districts will require in their staff report. Before

[1:17:10] creating this district, I would encourage you to answer two very basic

[1:17:14] questions. What will it actually cost man Madison County to administer and

[1:17:19] enforce these regulations? And who will pay for it? If the costs are ultimately

[1:17:23] assessed within each district per the statute, has anyone calculated what that

[1:17:28] means for individual property owners? The cost may not seem exorbitant if you

[1:17:33] look at it spread out across the entire district, but it might not feel so

[1:17:37] modest if based on taxable value, one or two land owners within a district are

[1:17:42] responsible for a disproportionate share of that cost. Before creating a

[1:17:46] permanent regulatory obligation, I would ask that the commission know both the

[1:17:50] cost of that obligation and who will actually bear it. Thank you so much for

[1:17:55] your time and consideration of my concerns.

[1:18:05] » My name is Pam Townsend. I live at 200 Jensen Road in Cameron. My husband and I

[1:18:11] bought built our house 15 years ago. and I'm also part of a family that's had a

[1:18:17] footprint in this valley since 1960. Um my husband and I stand in support of

[1:18:24] the majority of the signators to these petitions

[1:18:29] initiated zoning districts. Thank you.

[1:18:40] My name is Rebecca the Pike and I'm live on in the

[1:18:48] Big Horn Sheep uh district. I live on uh 19 Moonwater Lane

[1:18:57] on River and 8/10 of an acre. I'm a observer by nature.

[1:19:05] No pun intended, but uh nature is my favorite observation. And these two deer

[1:19:13] came rushing through my yard or not well close to my yard looking for a way down

[1:19:19] to the river to get out of wherever they were and they were in trouble and

[1:19:25] obviously in their sense of the word. And uh so I got to watch them scurry and

[1:19:35] try to find their way to the river. Uh I assume they made it and I know they

[1:19:41] wanted to get up there on the big mountain, get out of there. So anyway,

[1:19:47] uh that's uh the most recent observation and I'm looks like the tail

[1:19:55] of the of the beast this morning. And uh I am in favor of the positive

[1:20:04] on this wildlife and land preservation. And I've noticed things like the when

[1:20:14] they put in a new table in our area, which was this sage brush, uh then they

[1:20:22] planted over it to make it look nice. They put in a a great big tall grass

[1:20:29] with a lot of seed on it. I don't see too many animals eating it. Uh none of

[1:20:35] the big animals. Uh that big horn sheep were looking for

[1:20:40] food one winter came all the way down the whole and they were on the river.

[1:20:45] the Schwantler River. I crossed on our my side on Southside and uh they were

[1:20:52] digging around down there trying to find something to eat. And uh this stuff they

[1:20:58] put in alongside the roads and in the the trenches where they bury the cable,

[1:21:04] probably the cheapest stuff they can find. It's kind of a mixed seed. It's

[1:21:09] not clean seed. That's going to be a problem eventually. and uh with all our

[1:21:16] good brain we've had, it's a problem now. But anyway, I'm for the positive

[1:21:23] or for the to the uh whatever we're doing here

[1:21:30] working on. Yeah, I'm not a public speaker. I'm an observer. So, uh, that's

[1:21:37] I couldn't miss this opportunity to speak for the wildlife and for the the

[1:21:42] peace and quiet what we have. Uh, and that's actually what they're selling to

[1:21:47] the to the uh people that come and visit. So,

[1:21:53] we're going to lose that if we don't do something.

[1:22:11] guys. Thank you. Thank you. Um, my name is Jerry Orbula. I uh live

[1:22:18] at 7 lane. I've been there for quite some time. Um

[1:22:28] going to take this moment to thank you gentlemen and the staff here for all

[1:22:31] that you do. Uh it we've had the chance or I've had the chance but to observe

[1:22:38] more carefully over the last several years what you do and my heads off to

[1:22:42] you. You guys don't do this for the money

[1:22:45] though, do you? [clears throat] I mean,

[1:22:51] uh, see, it's out of charact. And honestly, that's that's why we're

[1:22:55] all here today as we all speak up. Speak up.

[1:23:01] » I speak up. >> I'm the one hearing. So, if you want to

[1:23:04] speak, >> thank you. I thank you. I I'll take

[1:23:07] that. Um, I want to clear up some misconceptions

[1:23:12] up front here. You know, I was raised in a coal mining town, small coal mining

[1:23:15] town. And what we call misconceptions back

[1:23:18] then were rumors and gossip. So there are a few misconceptions. I

[1:23:24] think I'm just going to take just a few moments to clear this up. The the

[1:23:28] concern about u if you're not in an identified zone that you're going to be

[1:23:34] controlled by that that is there's no connection there,

[1:23:38] right? I mean if you don't that's like saying [clears throat] I live in

[1:23:42] Gallatin and I'm going be affected by what you do in Ellis. That doesn't mean

[1:23:46] you'll be directly affected. I mean, does it affect long term? Well, if we're

[1:23:50] talking about long-term planning, yeah, maybe it does. Maybe we should be

[1:23:54] affecting some things long term. Um,

[1:24:00] and the idea that I certainly respect everybody's rights in the valley, but

[1:24:07] then we should also respect those people's rights who do want to try to

[1:24:11] protect their immediate surroundings. I think it's a matter of mutual respect

[1:24:17] here. Um, and the one that really threw me a

[1:24:20] curve since I am on the board for QRP is the idea that we're well funded. Uh,

[1:24:27] I think I want to just simply state that all of the funding that's come from PRP

[1:24:33] is by people in Madison Valley who are neighbors and who care. That's probably

[1:24:39] a significant consideration when you're looking at public sentiment. This is

[1:24:45] people of their own time, their own money, their own volition choosing to do

[1:24:50] this. There's nobody being forced here. So, I just want to clear that clarify

[1:24:56] that moment. I'm going to get on to my regular conversation here. So,

[1:25:00] uh so as I mentioned, I've been a property

[1:25:04] owner here in Reynolds Spash for more than 30 years. I stand here before you

[1:25:09] today under my understanding under the Montana law

[1:25:14] that citizen initiated zoning u is part of a citizen's right.

[1:25:23] I respectfully request that you adopt the citizens initiated zoning district

[1:25:27] um as it represents the views of the majority. Sorry, my eyes are terrible

[1:25:33] here.

[1:25:41] me to read it for you. >> You may have to let me just give it one

[1:25:45] more shot, then I'll let you um

[1:25:51] Okay. So, as I said, I respectfully ask that you consider this

[1:25:58] request under the understanding of the You know

[1:26:03] what? Is it allowed for me to read it for him? He has eye problems.

[1:26:09] » I have some vision issues that I'm just now dealing with. I can take one more

[1:26:12] shot at it. >> No, it's okay. We'll just in the

[1:26:14] interest of everybody's time. >> Yeah. Well, it's

[1:26:17] » your misery. It's

[1:26:21] okay. I respectfully request that you adopt the citizen initiated signing

[1:26:25] district which represents the views of the majority of my neighbors. It is also

[1:26:30] in sheet map. It also my understanding that the term majority is defined by 60%

[1:26:36] or more of the land owners in a district as required by Montana law and reflected

[1:26:40] by the signatures on the petition. The request represents more than three years

[1:26:45] of community outreach and time and money from citizens in Madison County to

[1:26:50] support a campaign of awareness and education and legal support in preparing

[1:26:54] a petition submitt such as this to Madison County. The genesis of the CICD

[1:27:00] initiative began four years ago. Neighbors began having conversations on

[1:27:04] the rapid changes at the south end of the Madison Valley. Those conversations

[1:27:09] grew to concerns with the increase in home buildings, existing developable

[1:27:13] parcels of record, expansion of a gravel pit and the attempt to build 150 RV

[1:27:18] park. Some of these occurring without much public awareness. We learned

[1:27:23] through numerous local neighborhood discussions the need for more

[1:27:26] information and the passion in the community to provide thoughtful input to

[1:27:30] complex challenges and growth of this amazing valley we all call home Madison

[1:27:35] Valley. Those of us who have lived in the valley of QD aware of the challenges

[1:27:40] overdevelopment of resources that have an irreversible impact on water forests

[1:27:44] and wildlife. It is well documented that these fragile resources are essential

[1:27:49] for future economic stability and lifestyle. Tourism is manageable.

[1:27:54] Destruction of natural resources is not. Consistent with Montana history, Madison

[1:28:00] County has historic agricultural heritage that is essential to preserve

[1:28:04] the lifestyle and economic stability of the county. The support of police

[1:28:09] medical and fire protection for rural areas has already been addressed by

[1:28:13] colleague Samantha Arvagast. Recognition of public demand for

[1:28:17] fishing, hunting, and camping opportunities in Madison County, which

[1:28:21] drives population relocation here means local citizens input and support for

[1:28:26] growth policy initiatives and planning tools. The idea of citizen initiated

[1:28:31] zoning can help address concerns such as land use compatibility, environmental

[1:28:36] protection, and infrastructure planning. Let me explain that during my past four

[1:28:42] years of working with PRP, the county conducted a multi-sight outreach program

[1:28:47] in an effort to understand public perspective and to listen to the people

[1:28:50] in remote areas of the county. I attended one of the meetings. By the

[1:28:55] way, I applaud this effort. The attendance was small but boisterous.

[1:28:58] less than 10% of the land owners for that area attended. This is not

[1:29:03] criticism. It is quite typical for these type of outreach programs. Here's the

[1:29:08] point. It was one time in four years with a less than 10% response. We were

[1:29:12] able to gather detailed public input as specific to the Rains Pass region and

[1:29:17] share results of our documented outreach and public opinions. After four years of

[1:29:21] ongoing communication, we've established a community. This community could also

[1:29:26] be utilized for future county initiatives. These districts can provide

[1:29:31] thoughtful, organized citizen input to the county regarding future growth and

[1:29:35] development. CICD does not compete with the county. It enhances community

[1:29:40] communication. Finally, I would like to address a

[1:29:43] concern raised about the cost of CICD. How many of you are familiar with the

[1:29:48] county discussion for a proposal to build a 150 lot RV park in Rain's past

[1:29:53] four years ago? Fortunately, the proposal was defeated, but not without a

[1:29:57] lot of discussion, confusion, expense, and difficult feelings. A quick

[1:30:02] question, how much of the county's limited and precious resources were used

[1:30:06] to address this issue? I don't know that number, but I'm pretty sure it involved

[1:30:10] multiple departments over several months. precious resource resources that

[1:30:15] you folks in this room are acutely aware of. What many observed during that

[1:30:19] process with confusion and misunderstanding in the community about

[1:30:24] what people can do with their property, the public's lack of understanding about

[1:30:28] covenants and their lack of compliance in rural areas only added to the chaos.

[1:30:33] These type of conflicts are not going away. Adopting CICD initiatives with

[1:30:38] clear guidelines that are developed and endorsed by local citizens will reduce

[1:30:42] public confusion and conflict and reduce the strain on county resources.

[1:30:47] The Montana legislature adopted the zoning framework in 1953 to allow

[1:30:52] citizens to petition the county to adopt zoning regulations to protect their

[1:30:57] property. The idea is a law based on two simple concepts that guide public

[1:31:01] policy, common sense and financial accountability. Without CICDs, it's more

[1:31:07] expensive to ignore and than adopt. I urge you to adopt a CICD proposal.

[1:31:21] » Thank you.

[1:31:28] » Good morning. My name is Steve Somatria. I am a citizen property owner in

[1:31:32] Randol's Pass for the past 12 years. I'm also a board member of reserve rand

[1:31:38] fully support the sheep mountain cisd which is in the public interest because

[1:31:41] its purpose and intent is to protect public health and safety as well as

[1:31:45] properly guide growth and development in the area which all considered together

[1:31:49] are a compelling governmental interest. One specific reason why I am supportive

[1:31:54] is driven by my concern with the declining residential water supply. In

[1:31:58] most recent years, the underground water table appears to be dropping.

[1:32:02] The static water level from my well has dropped from 160 ft to 353 feet with the

[1:32:08] total depth of the well still at about 440 ft. I hear about similar situations

[1:32:12] from other citizen property owners in the area and I'm anxious to preserve

[1:32:15] Rand's past to start its water study in order to benchmark current well levels

[1:32:19] in addition to bringing greater clarity and broader awareness to this issue.

[1:32:24] In addition, we have more lots in our area with no home or well yet compared

[1:32:28] to the number of lots with a home in a well. Therefore, there is not yet a well

[1:32:31] drawing water from the aquifer on the majority of lots.

[1:32:35] And let me be clear, these zoning regulations do not in any way impede

[1:32:38] these current land owners from building a home on their vacant lot and drilling

[1:32:41] the well eventually. But this potential future significant increase in water use

[1:32:45] from the aquifer as more and more residential wells come online does

[1:32:50] present a risk to the aquifer. So, are we also going to allow large-scale

[1:32:54] commercial development in Randle's Pass as a material add-on risk which puts an

[1:32:58] extremely high demand on the underground water supply

[1:33:02] or as these zoning regulations provide will we wisely prevent large-scale

[1:33:06] commercial development in Randles Pass is one smart smart way to mitigate the

[1:33:09] risk to this force? Some may doubt the risks, but surface

[1:33:13] water is a key indicator in what it's been telling us for a while now. We have

[1:33:18] seen surface water drying up which is an early indicator and confirms it is

[1:33:21] highly likely that the underground water table is indeed dropping.

[1:33:25] One of the many examples of the surface water issue is Mile Creek and Reynolds

[1:33:28] Pass. Mile Creek is a trickle compared to many years ago to the point where

[1:33:32] ranchers now need to consider drilling a well to make sure they have enough water

[1:33:36] for their cattle. How will this possibly new and important

[1:33:40] aggra business uh water-based need for ranchers which is also unaffected by

[1:33:44] these zoning regulations affect their affect the underground

[1:33:48] water tape. The agra use should be a priority in Rain's pass as opposed to

[1:33:53] large scale de uh commercial development and the water uh draw that it it that it

[1:33:58] takes. Another specific reason why I am supportive is the potential impact of

[1:34:02] property. What do you think will happen if we turn

[1:34:05] a blind eye to this challenge of a declining water supply, kick the can

[1:34:08] down the road, put no control over large commercial development, and end up

[1:34:12] having water supply problems in Brand's Pass? At a minimum, property values

[1:34:16] would be materially affected in a negative way. And if any lot ends up

[1:34:19] having trouble or difficulty finding water at some point in the future, that

[1:34:22] lot could potentially become nearly valuous.

[1:34:26] And when I think of the negative impact on property values, I'm also reminded of

[1:34:29] the common saying of those who oppose these initiatives. They will quickly

[1:34:32] offer, and I quote, a statement which I understand and respect, I am a personal

[1:34:37] property rights person. I support personal property rights. But what that

[1:34:42] statement leaves off or doesn't consider are these very important words.

[1:34:47] But what happens to my neighbor's property value when I have a large-scale

[1:34:50] commercial development project on my property?

[1:34:54] As an example, what do you think would happen to a neighbor's property value if

[1:34:57] an adjacent property owner is allowed to build a large hotel or some other large

[1:35:01] commercial development on a lot right next door or across the river from their

[1:35:05] neighbors residential lot with a single family home,

[1:35:09] that neighbor's property value would most certainly be adversely affected in

[1:35:12] a very material way. Finally, I want to draw attention to the degree of support

[1:35:16] that's been achieved with this zoning effort. This CICD effort has met the

[1:35:20] statutory requirement for signatures of over 60% of the affected property owners

[1:35:24] in support of the CIZDS which is why we are here today. Achieving greater than

[1:35:29] 60% is a very compelling threshold that's been achieved and I suspect it

[1:35:33] was set by the legislature with exactly that in mind

[1:35:37] so that when a county grants the petitioner's request it's not being

[1:35:41] arbitrary and capriccious as it's responding to a very compelling number

[1:35:45] of people who support the petition. The legislature deemed 60% to be a

[1:35:49] sufficient number of affected owners to petition for citizen initiated zoning

[1:35:52] and the petitions have met that bar. I'll close by saying two more quick

[1:35:57] things. One, it is very rare for any decision that requires people to sign a

[1:36:02] petition or vote in an election of any kind whereby one side receives more than

[1:36:08] 60% in support. This is democracy and action with a very

[1:36:12] compelling result. And two, I hope and pray that you will see the CICD

[1:36:16] regulations that they support the public interest or

[1:36:19] convenience and vote yes in support of the CISD petition. Thank you for

[1:36:24] allowing me to have the opportunity to speak today.

[1:36:31] » My name is Delio. I live at 101 Sheet Mountain Road in the Sheep Mountain

[1:36:38] District. Um, I fully support

[1:36:43] uh the zoning in these three districts without question. And I also have

[1:36:48] statement to read from somebody else if I'm allowed

[1:36:52] to whom it may concern. My name is Darnell Schulty, a resident of Madison

[1:36:57] County, Montana. I am a Madison County Forester, but I am

[1:37:02] writing this as a resident of the county, and my thoughts are expressly my

[1:37:05] own and reflect in no way those of Madison County. I would like to express

[1:37:10] my concerns about the continuing growth in Madison County.

[1:37:14] One, continued rapid growth, especially in the remoter areas of our county,

[1:37:19] bring with it several concerns that I have as a volunteer fireman. Water is

[1:37:24] becoming larger and larger issue across the west, not only for wildland fire

[1:37:28] suppression, but for residential and commercial use as well. Our continuing

[1:37:33] drought cycle coupled with lengthening fire seasons poses a very serious

[1:37:39] challenge for the safety of our citizens and their homes.

[1:37:43] Travel time to more remote areas brings with it increased quote unquote wear and

[1:37:48] tear on our emergency vehicles and first responders.

[1:37:54] travel time. Uh sorry, uh will homes and dwellings in

[1:38:00] these area be built with or be required to use firewise building materials and

[1:38:04] practices? These materials and practices will significantly increase the

[1:38:09] survivability of buildings across the county. In fact, in the event of a large

[1:38:13] fire, such as the current Sand Creek fire in Beaverhead County, areas built

[1:38:19] uh and maintained to these standards can increase safety zones for first

[1:38:23] responders. My final concern is road maintenance and

[1:38:27] uh access to more remote areas within the county. I feel that county road

[1:38:31] maintenance groups are doing uh a great job right now, but as always, things can

[1:38:36] improve. With additional miles added to their workload and budgets, they will be

[1:38:41] able to maintain them to a standard that allows safe and rapid access for

[1:38:45] emergency vehicles and evacuation of residents if needed. I guess this all

[1:38:50] boils down to a question of money. Additional growth uh generally equals

[1:38:54] more of everything to maintain roads, emergency vehicles, continued recruiting

[1:38:59] of first responders, etc. Uh some of the current well-intentioned

[1:39:03] homeowner groups uh in the county have put in place building requirements that

[1:39:07] do not match or are in direct conflict with smart building practices in the

[1:39:12] wildland urban interface WUI. Uh this is what essentially will uh all

[1:39:20] growth outside of a town uh is in Madison County. Now I feel the growing

[1:39:25] issue of wildland urban interface and growth should be uh carefully studied

[1:39:29] and thoughtful careful consideration be brought to bear on any proposed growth

[1:39:34] within the county. This would help alleviate the issues I've identified

[1:39:37] above and hopefully the ones I haven't addressed as well. Thank you for your

[1:39:41] time.

[1:39:45] » I apologize I forgot to drop off my

[1:39:54] multiple copies. There you go. Sorry.

[1:40:05] » Thank you.

[1:40:11] » Thank you, commissioners. It's a It's a pleasure to be here and listen to

[1:40:14] everybody's opinions [clears throat] as a leader in

[1:40:19] in business and in life. I come to understand that sometimes you make

[1:40:24] decisions that are tough and sometimes you don't make decisions and there's

[1:40:28] unintended consequences of not making a decision. So, I'd like to make a couple

[1:40:34] of comments. I live uh right at 1511 highway 287 right at Lion's Bridge.

[1:40:44] So, I want to create a vision for you. When you first come into Inennis from

[1:40:50] the north, I want you to think about that. What do

[1:40:54] you see? What are the first things you see?

[1:41:00] Junkyards, buildings that are falling apart. What

[1:41:04] is that impression that you get? You know, unregulated outside storage,

[1:41:11] no zoning. Now you're going over Reynolds Pass. Do

[1:41:16] you want to see those sorts of things in the future?

[1:41:21] It's something to really think about because

[1:41:25] the unintended consequences are coming our way. Our populations exploding.

[1:41:31] We have outside investment. Money generated other places not in our

[1:41:38] community. Investing in our community that's increasing the cost for

[1:41:42] everybody. Our land values have risen faster than the infrastructure we have.

[1:41:49] Over time, individual unregulated property decisions

[1:41:55] gradually damage the character and scenery that made Madison Valley so

[1:42:00] valuable to all of us. Incompatible uses

[1:42:06] end up side by side like a truck stop in an RV park next to an egg facility.

[1:42:13] development

[1:42:16] causes not only destroys visual and environmental issues, but it creates

[1:42:23] traffic and and uh road expansion costs. And as mentioned previously, the water

[1:42:30] resources are impacted, wildlife corridors impacted,

[1:42:36] land speculation already going ahead. If you if you can't help but miss the

[1:42:43] threetory development on Main Street that can't be sold,

[1:42:50] can you imagine that? Can you create a vision for that going over Reynolds

[1:42:55] Pass? Yes, we have property right conflicts, but if we don't do anything,

[1:43:00] the unintended consequences are there's going to be lawsuits,

[1:43:06] more ordinances, more time, more restricted covenants because we didn't

[1:43:11] do anything. I think it's important to vote for these zoning issues to protect

[1:43:16] our valley, the countyy's scenic scenic character, protect tourism and our egg,

[1:43:23] protect our water, and keep our spaces open in an organized manner. Or we can

[1:43:30] choose to do nothing. Yes, commissioners, this is a very hard

[1:43:34] decision, but doing nothing will have consequences

[1:43:39] that last for generations. And we can't. The tide is coming up and

[1:43:45] we're going to get swamped. Population's increasing. Outside influence is

[1:43:50] increasing. And if we're going to protect the collective value of our

[1:43:54] valley, we have to adopt these initiatives. So, dear commissioners, the

[1:43:58] decision you make today sets the stage for our future, not just for today or

[1:44:05] next year, but for our grandchildren. Thank you very much.

[1:44:08] » What's your name? John White, >> thank you.

[1:44:13] » Does the commission want rebuttals after public comment online or would you

[1:44:17] accept one now?

[1:44:21] » Public comment. >> Okay.

[1:44:32] » Quick time out. >> At some point, we're going to take a

[1:44:35] recess. >> Yeah.

[1:44:36] » If I sit here for nine hours, I'm going to die. Yeah,

[1:44:42] » this lady. >> I think that's a good idea.

[1:44:45] » Great idea. >> Thank you.

[1:44:51] » N Commissioner Gilman, Justin Bmer, 777 East Main Street here on behalf of the

[1:44:58] petitioners, including those who are members of

[1:45:01] preserve rains past. My comments today incorporate by

[1:45:06] reference the September 1st, 2026 letter in support of the CIZDS that was

[1:45:11] submitted via email yesterday. And given the limited time for my comments today,

[1:45:17] I want to make sure those were made a part of the record for this hearing. Can

[1:45:20] you all confirm you received that letter?

[1:45:24] » That's what they included in >> it was incorporated in motion.

[1:45:27] » Okay. [clears throat] I just wanted to make sure. Right. it.

[1:45:30] I just um that letter the written public comments and the public comment today in

[1:45:36] support of this citizen initiated zoning district regulation development pattern

[1:45:40] and map demonstrate the public interest requires adoption of the proposed CACD

[1:45:45] and regulation. The zoning regulation itself makes clear

[1:45:51] it to protect the rural residential and agricultural character of the area. the

[1:45:56] existing development pattern included in the regulation and given the limited

[1:46:00] public services and scarce water resources available which you've heard

[1:46:04] about. To be clear, for the record, the

[1:46:07] applicable statute 762101 requires only the public interest or

[1:46:13] convenience be demonstrated to adopt the zoning district, not both. And I

[1:46:19] mentioned this in response to the staff report and the findings required to

[1:46:22] adopt the CD. It looks like there is an attempt to

[1:46:27] over complicate this decision today in terms of the public comment and the

[1:46:32] staff report. And again, the decision is whether the CICD or in the public

[1:46:36] interest or convenience. There's no and and criteria beyond what is required by

[1:46:41] Montana law cannot be added through definitions of public interest or public

[1:46:45] convenience, but neither one of those are defined by statute. And the 15 the

[1:46:51] list of 15 questions in the staff report are also beyond what is required by

[1:46:55] statute. A number of people in the public have also asked you to consider

[1:46:59] things that are beyond what is provided in the statute and they do not apply to

[1:47:04] your decision regarding the quested CICD.

[1:47:07] The cumulative impact of one, two, or three separate zoning districts on

[1:47:11] Reel's pass is also not among the criteria adopted by the legislature for

[1:47:17] you to consider when looking at the CICD.

[1:47:21] The same is true for the capacity of administration and enforcement and you

[1:47:25] have the authority to levy which is intended for this very purpose.

[1:47:31] All these considerations are simply outside the scope of authority granted

[1:47:34] to you by statute and that is clear from the staff report and we agree the county

[1:47:38] only has the authority granted to it by statute

[1:47:42] and the statute only requires 40 acres. You have much more than that in these

[1:47:47] zoning districts. The criteria only require a petition of 60%. You have as

[1:47:53] much or more of these zoning districts. And in terms of public lands, that

[1:47:57] section isn't even triggered until the land is sold or transferred

[1:48:02] and becomes private. So that's not an issue.

[1:48:07] In addition to statute, you must consider the wealth of public comment in

[1:48:12] support of the CIZD. The Montana Constitution at Article 2 Section 8

[1:48:17] provides that the public has the right to expect governmental agencies such as

[1:48:22] the county to afford reasonable opportunity for citizen participation

[1:48:25] prior to their final decision and the public participation statutes

[1:48:30] contemplating more than just eliciting this eliciting this comment. You must

[1:48:34] address the com comments in your decision making today and the pertinent

[1:48:39] facts upon which you are basing your decision.

[1:48:42] This is in order to facilitate judicial review if it came to that. You also have

[1:48:47] an obligation and required by law to act in substantial compliance with your

[1:48:51] growth policy. And you've heard numerous ways in which the CICD are consistent

[1:48:56] with your growth policy. In fact, the county's own growth policy

[1:49:00] with respect to this area require supportive zoning efforts.

[1:49:05] In terms of whether the zoning districts are contiguous due to state highways, I

[1:49:09] did the legal research and in Montana, roads and highways are not considered a

[1:49:13] barrier to establishing contiguity. The citations are in that letter.

[1:49:18] You have the authority to adopt the CICD regulations development pattern as is or

[1:49:23] to amend or modify them. According to the statute, section 762101 only

[1:49:29] requires that they be similar to the drafts provided to the county, not

[1:49:33] identif

[1:49:36] And finally, the staff report also included questions and comments about

[1:49:39] the specific provisions of the zoning regulations that were applicable to all

[1:49:43] three. Exhibit A, the letter I submitted, addresses those questions and

[1:49:49] comments and are also applicable to all three. If you haven't read that yet, I

[1:49:53] encourage you to do so before making a decision so you have that.

[1:49:57] In conclusion, the state via the legislature conveyed the power to

[1:50:00] petition for zoning to the citizens and the authority to adopt zoning to you the

[1:50:06] county based on the part one zoning statutes. Zoning statutes are designed

[1:50:11] for the purpose of furthering the health, safety, and general welfare of

[1:50:14] the county. Thus, the part one zoning statutes are to be afforded liberal

[1:50:18] construction with a view toward accomplishing their highly beneficial

[1:50:23] objective, which is to adopt zoning. and you have some discretion, but that

[1:50:28] discretion must be tempered by an exercise within the statutory framework

[1:50:32] provided by the legislature. The affected property owners followed

[1:50:36] these statutes in proposing the CICD and you asked for the signatures

[1:50:42] been given signatures of more than 65% for this particular zoning district and

[1:50:47] those I'll make clear the public interest requires adoption of the CACD.

[1:50:52] Based on the record in front of you today, you arguably have the authority

[1:50:57] to adopt the CICD in the public interest. And based on the record, a

[1:51:03] decision not to adopt the zoning would arguably be so lacking in fact and

[1:51:08] foundation, it would clearly be unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.

[1:51:12] As demonstrated in my letter and in the testimony of the petitioners in the

[1:51:15] written comments as well as the comment you'll hear today, the petitioners have

[1:51:19] met their burden per the statute and they respectfully request that you adopt

[1:51:23] the CICD. Thank you. >> What was your name again?

[1:51:28] » Jessen, would you like me to spell it? >> Yeah,

[1:51:30] » it's in the letter. J E C Y N. Last name B R E M E R.

[1:51:39] » Okay. Thank you. Of course.

[1:51:42] Okay, with that we'll take a five minute recess.

[1:51:57] » I'm let

[1:52:09] go ahead sir when you're ready.

[1:52:16] My name is Glenn Patrick and I am representing LLA Homestead LLC.

[1:52:23] Uh we own land in the area do not agree with the zoning.

[1:52:31] Um there's a lot of emphasis put on 60% of

[1:52:36] the people miss agreed with this zoning.

[1:52:44] I guess I would suggest that those 60% let's just keep the zone put the zone on

[1:52:50] those 60 people that agreed with it and leave the rest of us to uh go ahead and

[1:52:56] use our land as we to fit. Um, a lot of emphasis has been put on

[1:53:04] wildlife, maintaining the wildlife. I don't know how many of you people were

[1:53:09] here 50 years ago, but 50 years ago, there was no houses out there. It was

[1:53:17] part of a big ranch in which my boy's family operated.

[1:53:24] it was sub subdivided and this is only a small part of that whole subdivision on

[1:53:29] that side of of the highway. So putting in a small zone division right there,

[1:53:36] right smack in the middle of it that isn't going to um affect the wildlife. I

[1:53:41] think the effect on the wildlife has been

[1:53:45] already the damage has been done and I don't think there's a whole lot you can

[1:53:50] do to to uh solve that problem. But, uh,

[1:53:57] I guess if if there's 60% of the people that want that zoning, get it on their

[1:54:04] land and let them live with the decisions and the requirements they put

[1:54:08] on themselves, not put the requirements on other people that not favor this.

[1:54:14] It's uh the private land owners just like them. They should be able to do

[1:54:19] what they want with their land. Um, of course you guys have some restrictions

[1:54:25] that you're responsible for, but that can kind of,

[1:54:32] you know, maybe ease some of the problems on some of these large

[1:54:35] developments. But, um, we oppose the the zoning and, uh, we

[1:54:41] appreciate the work that you guys are doing here. So,

[1:54:51] My name is Marina Smith and I live at 141 Elk Meadows Ranch Road.

[1:55:00] 43 years ago, I drove off the Norris Hill and dropped into Massel Valley.

[1:55:07] Fell in love instantly. It was wild, hug open, pristine, and felt like home.

[1:55:14] was a brighteyed student at Montana State University pursuing a degree in

[1:55:19] range science. Montana was dubbed the last best place

[1:55:24] in 1988 when the literary anthology was published and the title represents a

[1:55:31] deep pride among Montans who believe that we lived in one of the last truly

[1:55:36] wild places on earth. Montana has always celebrated vast open spaces

[1:55:43] of natural beauty and an independent way of life which values a strong sense of

[1:55:48] community and an unparalleled quality of life.

[1:55:54] It was these very attributes that led me to the Reynolds Pass area where I now

[1:55:59] manage two large conservation ranches and have done so for the past 28 years.

[1:56:05] It was the remoteness and the challenges that Reynolds Pass represented that drew

[1:56:10] me to live in this area made me proud to call it home. The ranches I manage have

[1:56:16] always actively supported wildlife and agriculture and we've developed close

[1:56:21] working relationships with several generational ranching families that we

[1:56:26] leave summer pasture to and thus help to support.

[1:56:30] We enrolled 8,500 acres in black management in an effort to support

[1:56:34] public hunting. Through the course of my time on the

[1:56:38] ranches, I've seen many changes, but the most glaring change is that water that

[1:56:44] was once plentiful is now becoming alarmingly unpredictable.

[1:56:49] After the unprecedented light winter of last year, I watched with quiet alarm as

[1:56:55] creeks that had never run dry failed to run water. With no snow in the high

[1:57:01] country to recharge the springs and creeks, I was very concerned about what

[1:57:05] the summer held. I decided to have a static level test done on one well at

[1:57:11] the home ranch. The test showed that the [clears throat]

[1:57:15] well had a total depth of 95 ft with a static level of 15 ft, a flow of 40

[1:57:22] gallons per minute at the time of drilling in 1999.

[1:57:27] is now at a static level of 70 ft with a flow of 35 gallons per minute. One of

[1:57:33] our groundwater fed ponds it in this same area has always maintained a

[1:57:39] consistent level and is now 2 and 1/2 ft lower than it was just last year. It's

[1:57:45] worth noting that we are the highest water user on this particular drainage.

[1:57:51] on our other ranch where we are the lowest downstream water user and rely

[1:57:55] exclusively on water brought out of the mountains by ditches and water rights

[1:57:59] that date back to 1888. We find it extremely challenging to get

[1:58:05] enough water. Every year it's a new challenge and drilling wells to provide

[1:58:10] water would be cost prohibitive as the depths of the wells in this area can be

[1:58:15] very deep. There's no clear way of knowing what

[1:58:18] Oxford is doing. But where we once had an abundance of water, we have very

[1:58:23] little. Without water, our ranch loses a tremendous amount of value, not only to

[1:58:29] us, but to the family whose cattle it supports and to the wildlife that

[1:58:33] utilize it and provide a huge economic value to Madison County. Potential

[1:58:40] commercial growth in this area can do nothing but strain an already strained

[1:58:45] aquifer. It was said not long ago that our

[1:58:50] efforts to zone Reynolds Pass were 40 years too late. I don't disagree,

[1:58:56] but I ask you to allow me a few personal analogies for your consideration.

[1:59:02] I live in a 40-year-old house. Occasionally, when it rains, I find

[1:59:07] water on the floor of the utility room of my finished basement. The tempting

[1:59:12] thing to do when faced with yet another problem would be to just ignore the

[1:59:17] water, throw a towel on it, pretend it hasn't happened. But that does not fix

[1:59:22] the problem. And damage is most likely occurring to my house as a result. The

[1:59:28] best solution, the most uncomfortable solution would be would be to dig out

[1:59:34] the foundation, find the leak. Daunting task to say the least. Remember me as I

[1:59:40] present another scenario and I promise to tie them together.

[1:59:46] Several years ago, I found one of my mares standing in the pasture, the front

[1:59:51] of her hind leg peeled almost to the bone from hawk to pasture.

[1:59:58] With that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that all horse owners will

[2:00:02] recognize, I ran and got a halter, caught her up to assess the damage and

[2:00:08] had to decide if doctoring her was an option or if a wellplaced bullet might

[2:00:14] be the best solution. I made the decision to try to doctor

[2:00:18] this mirror and hope that she would heal sound and without a scar.

[2:00:24] I religiously scrub proud f proud flesh and change bandages on that leg every

[2:00:30] single day for six months until a personal tragedy brought me to my knees

[2:00:37] and I simply could not do it any longer. But she was almost completely healed

[2:00:42] when I was forced to walk away. Life often presents us with choices.

[2:00:49] Choices which are not always easy. The choice to do nothing when faced with a

[2:00:55] challenge is always option. And while the easy choices may be more

[2:01:00] comfortable, they may not be the best choices for the long run. I fully

[2:01:05] recognize that zoning is new to Madison County, but for that reason, it's an

[2:01:10] unknown and less frightening and uncomfortable.

[2:01:14] I stand before you today and ask you to not throw your hands up and say, "You're

[2:01:19] 40 years too late. Just forget about trying to make a change for the better.

[2:01:25] But I am instead asking you to please make the difficult choice. Push the

[2:01:30] envelope of what is known and comfortable. Repair the house. Doctor

[2:01:36] the horse. Preserve what is left of the quality of life we hold so dear. Please

[2:01:41] support the CICD before it's truly too delayed. We still have a choice. Thank

[2:01:46] you for your time and consideration.

[2:01:52] Okay, we've run out of time for our hearing of any more people would like to

[2:01:58] testify.

[2:02:01] [clears throat] >> We'll take a second.

[2:02:03] » People online chairman David I think what you're going

[2:02:09] to need to do it see this is obviously important. There's a lot of people that

[2:02:13] probably online still want to speak and there people in the room that still want

[2:02:16] to speak. Um so what what Mr. hour I would suggest is that you continue the

[2:02:22] public comment um to next Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. That'll give you an

[2:02:27] opportunity to advertise the meeting. Um and people can come back, people can

[2:02:33] participate online, but then you're not shutting off public comment. Everyone

[2:02:37] participate. >> Thank you for that. I'll entertain a

[2:02:41] motion that >> I would move to continue this till next

[2:02:44] Wednesday at 9 o'clock.

[2:02:49] I'll second that. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second

[2:02:52] to continue this hearing at 9:00 next Wednesday. That's

[2:03:00] 9. >> Correct.

[2:03:03] » Yes. You just put it at 9. That way you don't know what's going to happen with

[2:03:06] the next few days and then that way you can use Wednesday to accommodate any any

[2:03:10] overflow time. Those are necessary as well. I suggest publishing that on the

[2:03:15] uh the county website. Okay,

[2:03:18] » there was a blood drive here. >> Going to have to move in the basement

[2:03:27] discussion.

[2:03:31] » I

[2:03:35] was encouraged that we'll continue this hearing 9:00 next.

[2:03:42] » Thank you all. >> Clarification chairman. They still have

[2:03:46] another two other districts. >> Yes, we do. We have another We have

[2:03:49] another hearing coming up. So, we got to move on to that.

[2:03:52] » Thank you, sir. Just quick question. So, I assume those people who have spoke

[2:03:55] will not have an opportunity to speak again. That's or

[2:04:00] is that [clears throat] reopened again? >> Yeah, we'll open it up to public comment

[2:04:06] again, then continue this hearing. >> We can speak again to

[2:04:09] » Yeah, because we're out of time for this one. So, in fact, we have to move on to

[2:04:13] our next one. So, [clears throat] we'll do that.

[2:04:17] » I think that'll be subject to the to the rules that were set forth before. I

[2:04:21] mean, if your comments are duplicative, there's no need to to speak yet, but

[2:04:26] it's just to allow full public out

[2:04:30] the board.

[2:04:35] » Okay. With that, we'll move on to our 11 a.m.

[2:04:39] creation >> answering a question at the back of the

[2:04:42] room. It's a totally separate proceeding.

[2:04:48] » Never mind. >> Next two hearings are

[2:04:51] different.

[2:05:08] So, can I

[2:05:17] have that?

[2:05:25] » Yeah.

[2:05:38] Okay, we'll move on to the next hearing. The pronghorn meadow sits in the city

[2:05:44] zone district. I'll open the hearing at 11:07. So,

[2:05:50] we're ready for public comment. >> I move initially and move to incorporate

[2:05:55] all written comment received uh related to this subject into the record.

[2:06:00] » Okay. Second that. Okay, we have a motion second to all

[2:06:06] record [clears throat] any further discussion hearing. None

[2:06:12] » I

[2:06:16] motion carries.

[2:06:21] » Hello, my name is KZ. I'm a property owner in Rel's Pass as well as executive

[2:06:25] director of Preserve Rain's Pass in Montana nonprofit 501c3.

[2:06:30] First and foremost, thank you commissioners and county staff for your

[2:06:33] work with the rain community for over three years on these planning and zoning

[2:06:37] efforts. The post citizen initiated zoning districts in front of you today

[2:06:42] represent this multi-year effort by Rain's past property owners to protect

[2:06:46] their future and her property. >> [clears throat]

[2:06:48] » Everyone in this room, those joining us online, and those citizens who couldn't

[2:06:53] participate today have a keen interest in their future, their family's future

[2:06:57] in the future of Madison County. That shared interest is our common ground.

[2:07:02] And there is no better common ground from which to respectful request the

[2:07:06] Madison County Commissioners approve the Ponghorn Meadows citizen initiated

[2:07:10] zoning district for you today. Due to the similarity of the Randos Pass area,

[2:07:15] its rural residential pattern of development, landscapes, wildlife, water

[2:07:19] concerns, and surrounding pressures for commercial development, the data and

[2:07:24] relevant comments you hear today regarding Bronborn Meadows, and the two

[2:07:27] other CICD and Rails Pass may appear duplicative, but the data and comments

[2:07:32] are true for each critically located CICD.

[2:07:35] Each CP before you today is necessary for the public interest or convenience

[2:07:40] and here for much of the public comment. Consider this. In our lifetime, we've

[2:07:46] seen a good deal of change. Farms and ranchers use heavy equipment instead of

[2:07:50] plow horses and mules. Internet access allows people to work anywhere,

[2:07:55] including more desirable rural locations like Madison County.

[2:07:59] Big Sky sprang from forested public lands and scrub brush ranches became a

[2:08:04] skiill community and is now host to commercial and resort development.

[2:08:08] Multi-million dollar homes and movie stars spilling into Madison County.

[2:08:13] There's no infrastructure to support this scale of development in Rain's past

[2:08:17] now or in the future. Montana's population has more than

[2:08:21] doubled from 477,000 in 1945 to 1,144

[2:08:28] 694 in 2025. In our children's lifetime, the greater

[2:08:33] Yellowstone ecosystems population where Madison County sits at the heart and

[2:08:37] host the Missouri red headarters is forecasted to reach between 763,000

[2:08:43] and 846,000 by 2050 to60.

[2:08:48] where these people live and the corresponding impacts to Madison County

[2:08:51] are what is on the table today. Today you have the opportunity based upon the

[2:08:56] petition of a supermajority of citizens and the pro proposed pong horn meadow cd

[2:09:03] to protect the agricultural and rural residential character of this area of

[2:09:07] reolds pass. You can tip the scale and favor the effect of property owner's

[2:09:12] quality of life by adopting the Ponghorn Meadow CICD which will protect this

[2:09:17] limited natural resources, water, wildlife, wildlife habitat, agriculture

[2:09:23] and open space and sustain our economic drivers of agriculture, hunting, fishing

[2:09:28] and tourism. These are the reasons the prong Meadow CICD is necessary for the

[2:09:34] public interest. The Montana legislature created the CIC tool in 1953 for

[2:09:40] citizens to petition for zoning. Those representatives understood the citizens

[2:09:45] right to and interest in protecting their property. In an August 13, 2024

[2:09:50] public meeting of the commission, they said that they would like to see

[2:09:53] signatures for zoning. Again, a super majority of those signatures have been

[2:09:58] provided. Today the community of the proposed pong horn meadow CACD asked the

[2:10:03] commission to adopt the citizen initiated zoning district and the

[2:10:06] proposed land use planning regulations which protect the existing agricultural

[2:10:11] and rural residential development pattern existing uses and allow citizens

[2:10:16] to request exceptions to and amend the regulations. This is in the public

[2:10:20] interest or convenience. The Prong Hormet CICD and zoning development

[2:10:25] pattern and use is clearly adhered to and are consistent with the 2025 Madison

[2:10:30] growth policy land use objectives. MC3 preserve existing open space and

[2:10:36] protect valuable agricultural land. MC4 plan for responsible, reasonable and

[2:10:41] managed growth and development. MC5 protect the public health and safety of

[2:10:46] county residents. MC6 support zoning efforts. MC7, protect private property

[2:10:52] rights, and MC8, encourage municipal growth versus urban sprawl. And the 2025

[2:10:59] Madison County growth policy environment objectives are MC9, protect wildlife

[2:11:04] habitat, MC10, preserve natural resources, and protect water resources.

[2:11:09] MC11 support growth in agriculture, forestry, recreation, and tourism, and

[2:11:15] small service-based businesses in a manner that does not impact established

[2:11:19] residential communities. MC12 discouraged development that will

[2:11:23] financially strain public services. MC13, support infrastructure

[2:11:28] improvements within incorporated and unincorporated communities. For these

[2:11:33] reasons, among others, the public's interest or convenience require adoption

[2:11:37] of the Prong Horn Meadow CICD and zoning regulations.

[2:11:41] The proposed regulations aim to protect the Rain's past development pattern by

[2:11:44] preventing high impact commercial business from bringing high density

[2:11:49] human activity to remote agricultural and rural residential lands in this area

[2:11:54] with little to no public infrastructure. High density development and

[2:11:58] corresponding population increase are proven to disrupt wildlife, disrupt

[2:12:02] wildlife quarters, increase consumption of limited water resources, and

[2:12:06] increased traffic, a public safety hazard.

[2:12:10] People are attracted to the rural lands and access to the Madison River

[2:12:14] available in Reynolds Pass. However, more people on the banks and in the

[2:12:18] waters of the Madison River and already burdened fishery is not sustainable.

[2:12:22] This river, the lifeblood of the Madison Valley, provides an economic benefit to

[2:12:26] a wide swath of the county and it is in the public interest and necessity to

[2:12:31] protect it. It is also in the public interest and necessity to protect the

[2:12:34] lands that surround it. Wildfire is on top of mind every year and Reynolds Pass

[2:12:39] has been fortunate this year. The proposed CICD and regulations reinforce

[2:12:44] Mount Madison County's fire hazard mitigation practices and by containing

[2:12:49] future parcel sizes at 40 acres maintains density consistent with the

[2:12:53] current development pattern. Maintaining density at this level is critical given

[2:12:58] the limited public resources in this area of the county and their distance

[2:13:01] from emergency service providers which is definitely in the public interest or

[2:13:06] convenience. Montana's population has more than

[2:13:10] doubled from four. Whoops. Went back.

[2:13:17] The proposed Ponghorn Meadow CICD regulations are forward-looking, not

[2:13:21] retroactive. If adopted, land owners will not be surprised by disruption of

[2:13:25] their peaceful enjoyment of their land by a casino, resort, hotel, or RV park,

[2:13:30] or other high impact commercial use completely at odds with the character of

[2:13:34] this area. The CICD and zoning regulations will provide a predictable

[2:13:39] future. Some of these lands have covenants, many of which prohibit

[2:13:43] commercial activity, but may not be effective at addressing the same impacts

[2:13:47] as those addressed by the CIZD. Citizens are aware from previous

[2:13:52] development applications before the planning board and commissioners that

[2:13:55] the county cannot be involved in covenant disputes.

[2:13:59] Madison County does not currently have tools to address impacts from land use.

[2:14:03] It only has authority when subdivision is proposed. The CICD is a tool to

[2:14:08] address impacts from land uses that adversely affect property owners.

[2:14:12] Another reason why the public interest or convenience require adoption of the

[2:14:16] ponghorn meadow CICD. Zoning has a long history in this

[2:14:21] country to protect public health and safety and welfare by separating

[2:14:25] industrial and residential areas and there is longstanding precedent for part

[2:14:29] one zoning in Montana. We've identified 136 CIZD in Montana. For reference, 88%

[2:14:37] of these CICDs do not bear CICD levies. And for those that do, the levies are

[2:14:42] typically 1% of a property's taxable value. With these zoning regulations,

[2:14:47] property owners within a CICD have a chance to protect their property

[2:14:51] interest. Please do what is clearly in the public interest or convenience and

[2:14:55] adopt the Prong Horn Meadow CICD and regulations. Thank you, Kate.

[2:15:20] Um >> 30 seconds we were discussing um

[2:15:24] » sign it >> let me know when

[2:15:26] » if there are new arrivals please make sure that you sign in um if there is not

[2:15:30] a sheet we'll take care of that okay >> that way so

[2:15:36] we will grab that one and then for the next hearing

[2:15:41] And then just write when you graph it on there so you build the record correctly.

[2:15:48] » Awesome. Hello againro, our family owns property at Sage

[2:15:52] Retroway in Cameron, Montana. Um, I wanted to just extend sort of the

[2:15:56] comments that I had made for the sheet mountain varian, but also uh I wanted to

[2:16:00] just sort of bring up corresponding non-conformity numbers for this specific

[2:16:04] district. Um, I find this p specific district particularly interesting

[2:16:08] because there are only seven parcels of property contained within the boundaries

[2:16:12] and not a single one meets the 40 acre minimum acreage standard of the

[2:16:17] regulation. Um, so one of those and also one of those parcels is already

[2:16:21] protected by conservation easement. So in Pongghorn Meadows, the commission is

[2:16:26] being asked to adopt a minimum acreage standard that zero existing properties

[2:16:30] can meet. Um that creates an additional layer of regulatory burden for the

[2:16:34] county in which we have the land owners have a burden of proof to prove that

[2:16:40] they have non-conforming properties prior to the adoption of this regulation

[2:16:44] and they have to maintain that proof into perpetuity for all we know for the

[2:16:48] next 50 years. So can we guarantee that a property owner in 50 years their

[2:16:52] children people who inherit the property people who purchase the property in the

[2:16:55] future will have access to that proof going forward? Um, I [clears throat]

[2:17:00] think it's a pretty clear example of how these districts do not meet the

[2:17:05] pre-existing development pattern of this district. Thank you.

[2:17:14] » Hi, Maline Mason, 97, Julie Gardav, Boseman. Um, I come to you today not as

[2:17:20] property owner, but simply as a recreator of Madison County and Rains

[2:17:23] Pass. I stand before you as part of the Rains Pass community, a community of

[2:17:27] people who welcome you in with open arms. as I've joined in their advocacy

[2:17:30] feel protected their area. Madison County is a part of the greater

[2:17:33] Yellowstone ecosystem, one of the largest and million in fact tempered

[2:17:36] zone ecosystems on Earth. Wildlife flourishes here in unique and remarkable

[2:17:40] fashion. This is meaningful to me as someone who wishes to see much the

[2:17:43] biodiversity today extend into the future of tomorrow. And as someone whose

[2:17:46] household depends on a freezer full of game come winter.

[2:17:50] The zoning district regulations prohibit commercial development to limit high

[2:17:53] density development as an effort to preserve open landscapes. Buildings are

[2:17:57] permanent on 40 acres to maintain isulate movement. Again, this is just

[2:18:00] one layer to the regulations in terms of parcels. In a recent study released by

[2:18:05] University of Wyoming in partnership with US Fish and Wildlife Service,

[2:18:08] multiple other federal and state agencies, they studied the use of space

[2:18:12] between homes by elk moose from corn mu deer enrolled areas. In doing so,

[2:18:15] researchers were able to identify ranges of space between homes that were too

[2:18:19] narrow for undisturbed use by wildlife. The study concluded that maintaining

[2:18:22] space in between houses greater than 500 meters will likely facilitate unulant

[2:18:26] movement. While placement of homes on parcels is the greatest factor in

[2:18:30] achieving the widths needed to maintain unulant movement, we can observe that 40

[2:18:34] acres is a conservative approach to the parcel size needed.

[2:18:38] While larger parcels parcel sizes would fully preserve the use of functional

[2:18:42] habitat, 40 acres is a conservative approach that reflects minimum threshold

[2:18:46] intended to preserve basic wildlife movement without imposing drastic

[2:18:50] constraints on land use. Moving slightly to a different topic.

[2:18:54] We're aware of concerns regarding a potential increase in property taxes for

[2:18:58] property owners within a zoning district via mill levy. The plain language of

[2:19:02] section 76-2-102 states, "Subject to 15-10-420,

[2:19:08] the finance finances necessary for the transaction, the planning and zoning

[2:19:12] commission's business and to pay the expenses of the employees and justified

[2:19:16] expenses of the commissioner's members must be paid from the levy on the

[2:19:20] taxable value of all taxable property within the district. However, in our

[2:19:24] research, we found that out of the 137 citizen initiated zoning districts that

[2:19:29] we are aware of across the state, only 12% of them have a levy. The remaining

[2:19:33] 88% of citizen initiated zoning districts have not required the creation

[2:19:37] of a levy to fund costs of administering a city. Revoli County, a county very

[2:19:42] similar to Madison in regard to rural and residential land, has 42 CICDs and

[2:19:48] zero mill levies. Lewis and Clark County has 35 CICDs and have not enacted any

[2:19:53] mill levies. We see this example for smaller scales as well. Richland and

[2:19:58] Prairie County both only have one CICD and have not subjected their

[2:20:02] constituents to a levy. Our research concludes that the majority of counties

[2:20:05] have conducted citizen initiated zoning districts without a levy. Therefore, no

[2:20:10] levy on Bron Meadow district would be unlikely and ultimately up to the

[2:20:14] county. A 1999 version of statute, now updated, appears to have limited the

[2:20:19] mill amount. Quote, "The finances necessary for the transaction of the

[2:20:23] planning and zoning commission's business and to pay the expenses of the

[2:20:26] employees and justified expenses of the members of the board must be paid from a

[2:20:29] levy of not to exceed 1 mill on the taxable value valuation of the real

[2:20:34] property within the district. While the not to exceed levy amount has since been

[2:20:38] removed, the two counties that use mill levies for CICDs have stayed within the

[2:20:42] prior statutory cap. Dawson County allows commissioners to levy up to one

[2:20:47] mill on the taxable valuation of real property within planning zoning

[2:20:50] districts. Gallton County has varying mill rates averaging 2.53 mills again

[2:20:55] staying within the reach of the prior statutory cap. If Madison County fell

[2:21:00] into the minority and chose to put a 1m levy on Pongorn Meadow zoning district

[2:21:04] based on 2026 tax values, the county would ultimately only raise $21.99

[2:21:09] across the seven property owners. I urge you to listen to the citizens

[2:21:13] before you and to create the prom that OCID to uphold the values of Madison

[2:21:17] County and its residents stand for. Thank you for your time.

[2:21:24] » Thank you.

[2:21:27] » Hi, Pamela Townsend again representing my husband. I live at 200 Jensen Road

[2:21:34] um in Reynolds Pass and I'm here just to state our support for the CID. Thank

[2:21:41] you.

[2:21:45] [clears throat] >> Philip Waters again, 6353 Delta Drive,

[2:21:47] Church Hill. I'm also a property owner on Slide Rock Road here in Cameron. Um,

[2:21:53] I want to just speak durain to the Prong Meadows, which if I am correct indicates

[2:21:58] this this little section up on the top, the northern end of the section that

[2:22:02] affects me. And again, I did review since this morning that I am actually I

[2:22:06] actually have been apparently been gerrymandered out of what was originally

[2:22:11] proposed. So I just want to point to the commission that related to Ponghorn men

[2:22:15] meadows, it is somehow convenient and in the interest of that public that that be

[2:22:20] carved out of a section that's adjacent to us. But then somehow the rest of the

[2:22:26] community has been brought into a larger section. And so I don't know, you know,

[2:22:29] who has the power to do this if it's if everything is in order and the

[2:22:32] commission is willing to motion that these be sectioned into smaller sections

[2:22:37] like that so that that community can speak more to their neighborhood. There

[2:22:42] are seven, eight parcels over here. And it makes sense that one or two people

[2:22:46] might object, but they object to the rest of their neighbors, which is an

[2:22:49] obvious majority, versus I objected and so I was kicked out of the the other

[2:22:54] section in order to facilitate success of the of the motion in despite the

[2:23:00] opposition. So, Germaine to Pranghorn Meadows, um, was it convenient? Was it

[2:23:06] in the interest of the the surrounding property owners to do that or could that

[2:23:10] be your golden bridge to suggest for some of these other areas, it is not

[2:23:15] convenient. It is not in the interest of the rest of the public to have such a

[2:23:17] large swath. So, um, as we can contrast those two, the smaller sections versus

[2:23:23] larger sections, Ron Horn Meadows, like I would object generally to this

[2:23:27] initiative, but I have no reason to object to that small neighborhood doing

[2:23:31] their what they desire. On the other hand, I would point out that if those

[2:23:35] seven neighbors are in cahoots, somehow they could turn around and decide to

[2:23:39] vote to build a hotel right there and leaving the rest of us hanging and them

[2:23:43] cashing in. And so, uh, it does not seem to be convenient or in my interest that

[2:23:50] I be I I assert myself as being the public that that statute applies to,

[2:23:55] whether I'm included or not. It is not convenient or in my interest to have me

[2:23:59] gerrymander that out for their own success. Um, versus apparently it is

[2:24:05] totally feasible to cut it down into smaller pieces, which another citizen

[2:24:09] suggested and I suggested the commission move to have that happen. Thank you.

[2:24:14] » [clears throat]

[2:24:20] » I have a question for the commission. So, I have previously made comments on

[2:24:24] the previous hearings. Can I just ask that those comments be written into this

[2:24:28] hearing? >> We'd love that.

[2:24:30] » Save us a little time. >> Yes. Thank you.

[2:24:32] » I will say that that I support this initiative. My opinion hasn't changed.

[2:24:37] But if I can just bring those comments forward to this hearing and also the

[2:24:41] next one, I would I would respectfully do that.

[2:24:44] » What's your name? >> Larry Ray.

[2:24:46] » Thank you. >> You can be an example for everyone.

[2:24:50] » Well, I'm not sure about that. An example for myself maybe.

[2:24:56] Appreciate it.

[2:25:05] Keith Shine, 25 Big Ben Road, Cameron. As stated previously, I'm not in any of

[2:25:11] these proposed districts, but my wife and I are here in support of them, and

[2:25:16] I'm speaking to a different point on this occasion. I've been working as a

[2:25:21] volunteer preserve past pretty much since its inception.

[2:25:26] And during the process, as maybe most of us are aware, there was a chance that

[2:25:31] commission could have taken a look at these proposed districts without a vote

[2:25:36] of the 60% required. And I despared when the commission rejected that possibility

[2:25:42] and insisted on a vote because I thought that it was in effect

[2:25:48] trying to torpedo the whole process and put an obstacle in it that was

[2:25:52] insurmountable. And I became angry and frustrated and thought was a done deal.

[2:25:59] Later I changed my mind. I thought no you guys did exactly the right thing by

[2:26:07] imposing that hurdle. Why not see results that are

[2:26:11] irrefutable? An overwhelmed majority of owners in

[2:26:16] support. a referendum announced with a landslide to be

[2:26:23] the property owners in these districts did just that. They exercised democracy

[2:26:30] in its most fundamental grassroots way. They stood together. They voted yes

[2:26:37] together. The people have spoken.

[2:26:42] The Mont Tennis Legislature by statute has given citizens the right to create

[2:26:48] citizens in initiated zoning districts. The formal in the proposed districts

[2:26:55] have exercised exactly that right. I humbly request that the commission

[2:27:01] respect this democratic action and approved approve the zoning districts.

[2:27:08] The people have spoken.

[2:27:19] » Hi, my name is Diane Olaf and I along with my brother, sister, and mother are

[2:27:24] the owners of the Olaf Ranch located at 850 Highway 8287.

[2:27:30] I would also like my remarks from the earlier meeting to be moved forward to

[2:27:34] the next two meetings.

[2:27:40] Does that mean that the crazy letter would be

[2:27:43] or go ahead?

[2:27:49] » Hi, my name's Chris Marino. I don't have any prepared

[2:27:54] statement. I'm one of the parcels in question at 73 Pond Road.

[2:28:00] Um, and there's no casinos coming because nobody's ever even reached out

[2:28:06] to me. I have no idea what this petition is about.

[2:28:10] And uh um so I'm going to be opposed to it because

[2:28:15] I have no idea what's at. So uh I would speak to uh hold in what

[2:28:21] everyone likes here, which is the quality of life. And uh that's really

[2:28:25] fundamental to what we all want.

[2:28:32] Thanks for your time.

[2:28:36] » Thank you for your time today. My name is Sandra Olaf Kerta and along with my

[2:28:40] sister and and brother and mother, we do own the Ola Ranch at 28 850 Highway 287

[2:28:46] in Cameron. Um I spoke earlier and I would like to include my comments from

[2:28:51] earlier into this meeting. I'd also like to add that there are not necessarily

[2:28:57] two options for you as commissioners. It's not a it's not a for or against. I

[2:29:01] do believe that we can probably come to an agreement that is maybe adjusted with

[2:29:06] property boundaries some of the restrictions. So I just wanted you to

[2:29:10] keep that in mind that is it's not necessarily a yes or no.

[2:29:16] Thank you for your time.

[2:29:20] Commissioners, you have a hand on the screen there.

[2:29:25] » We'll go through these and then we'll

[2:29:32] my glasses. Um, good morning, [clears throat] commissioners. Thank you

[2:29:35] for your um giving me the opportunity to speak. My husband and I, my name is

[2:29:40] Samantha Arbigas. My husband and I are property owners at 21 Moonwater Lane in

[2:29:44] Rains Pass. I'm also a board member with Preserve Reynolds Pass. Um, and I've

[2:29:49] already read you this whole letter. Um, so I'm going to spare you hearing it

[2:29:53] again, but I do want to make sure that my comments are submitted in in the

[2:29:56] public record for this particular hearing. Is that okay?

[2:30:13] » Well, I'm uh Bob Garrett. I'm a merit professor at MSU and was director of the

[2:30:18] fish and wildlife program um for about 20 years uh at MSU and I'm representing

[2:30:26] fish, wildlife and parks and I was asked to read a portion of two letters that

[2:30:31] that fish, wildlife and parks provided on the citizen zoning initiatives. Um

[2:30:38] I'm going to read um uh part of a letter from August 15th

[2:30:43] signed by Dr. Kelly Profett supervisor of region three

[2:30:49] that was related to the big horn pass and uh or the big horn crossing and

[2:30:55] sheep mountain proposal. this one paragraph that's referred to then in a

[2:31:00] letter in a a later letter uh that they wrote res

[2:31:06] regarding the pro perm uh

[2:31:11] citizen zoning initiative. The Reynolds pass area is geographically important.

[2:31:17] It provides an opening grassy lower elevation access for the continental

[2:31:22] wide bounded by steep mountains and forested hills. These natural features

[2:31:26] make it attractive corridor for unullet migrating to summer cving and spawning

[2:31:32] ranges and recent research has demonstrated the importance of this area

[2:31:36] for migratory elk and pong horn. Although we have not yet been able to

[2:31:41] follow mu deer in this area, we suspect they should similar migratory patterns

[2:31:47] and migratory behavior is an important life history component of wildlife in

[2:31:53] this area. uh after that uh letter was was uh drafted for from fish, wildlife

[2:32:01] and parks in June 6 uh 2006. I think you already have copies of these letters. Um

[2:32:09] Dr. Kelly Profett provided another letter for the analopee basin and pro

[2:32:15] meadows of proposed districts. Um and the pertinent paragraph from that one is

[2:32:21] uh in addition to wildlife values generally discussed in our August 15 25

[2:32:27] letter supporting big horn crossing and sheet mountain proposed districts the

[2:32:31] proposed analopee basin and prone meadows zoning districts encompass

[2:32:36] portions of a migratory corridor used by Madison Valley Prohorn.

[2:32:42] The map attached uh to the to the August 15, 2025 letter clearly outlines these

[2:32:48] pathways. The Madison Ponghorn migratory corridor is geographically constricted

[2:32:55] to a narrow band of inner mountain grasslands at Reynold Pass just a mile

[2:33:00] wide in some areas. This migratory corridor provides connectivity for pong

[2:33:06] horn to move between this summer and winter range.

[2:33:10] this propo these proposed zoning districts which limit development in the

[2:33:14] area but help maintain this migratory corridor.

[2:33:23] So given that uh statement representing fish wildlife and parks I'd like to make

[2:33:30] a statement as a resident of the um Reynolds Pass area. Uh I my name is

[2:33:38] Robert Garrett. The uh my address is 75 highway 287 South Cameron. And I've

[2:33:47] already made this presented that statement in the in the previous

[2:33:51] meeting. And I just like for that statement to be attributed to this

[2:33:56] meeting as well. Thank you.

[2:34:07] Hi, my name is excuse me, Tom Schroeder. I live at 144 Continental Divide Ranch

[2:34:11] Road. Uh, and I made comments in the earlier proceeding. And I just want to

[2:34:17] make sure that those comments are in support of all the three zoning

[2:34:21] districts are included in the public record for this district as well as the

[2:34:27] upcoming district, too. Thank you.

[2:34:36] Now, let's go to the online.

[2:34:41] » Well, there's a publish.

[2:34:46] » Yeah, go ahead.

[2:34:51] » My name is uh my name is Jerry Orbula. I uh have a place here at Seven Moon Water

[2:34:58] Lane. um Cameron here on up on the um I'd like

[2:35:05] my previous comments actually read by K entered into the record and since I

[2:35:10] can't afford K again I'll make my comments very brief. Um

[2:35:17] I I do want to highlight one one barrier. I I don't know if people are

[2:35:22] aware of this, but the the guidelines that are in place for these zones are

[2:35:27] actually less restrictive than any of the state or county documents.

[2:35:33] And I just want that to go off record and hopefully people who didn't have a

[2:35:36] chance to learn about this or read it. Uh any one of us will happy to send you

[2:35:41] information or explain it to you if you don't understand any of these. Thanks.

[2:35:45] We'd be happy to spend

[2:35:54] Hi, I'm Steve Somatio. I'm at uh I'm on the uh C I'm one of I'm a citizen owner

[2:35:59] in Rand's past for the past 12 years and I'm also a member of the preserve rand

[2:36:03] board and I would just like to make sure that I have the same comments from sheet

[2:36:07] mountain uh district conversation to apply to the ponghorn. I like to have

[2:36:12] make sure they have that they're entered into the record and I can hear

[2:36:22] Julie Dulio 101 road. Uh I came up before and read a statement by Daryl

[2:36:28] Schulty. Um so I'd like to submit that for this district as well or this zoning

[2:36:34] as well.

[2:36:37] Thank you.

[2:36:42] It's still morning. So I'll say good morning again. Chair and I county

[2:36:46] commissioners Justin Bremer J C Y N B R E N E R 7770 East Main

[2:36:55] Street appearing on behalf of preserving and petitioning property owners.

[2:37:00] I'll try be try to be a little more brief, but I will incorporate my

[2:37:03] reference the September 1st, 2026 letter in exhibit A into the record. And um in

[2:37:10] in this particular case, you have 78% of affected owners petitioning for this

[2:37:16] Ponghorn Meadows CIZD. And again, the zoning regulation itself demonstrates

[2:37:22] the public interest or convenience requires the adoption of this zoning

[2:37:26] district and regulation to protect the rural residential and agricultural

[2:37:30] character of the area and the existing development pattern in this area. in

[2:37:36] considering the limited public services that you've heard about this morning as

[2:37:40] well as the scarce water resources. As I explained earlier, the plain

[2:37:45] language of the applicable statute 76U 101 states only that the public interest

[2:37:50] or convenience required the adoption of the zoning

[2:37:54] district. And as you and as you've heard, the finding has been met.

[2:37:58] The staff report goes a little beyond this in the plain language of the

[2:38:01] statute by providing pages of questions and considerations and definitions, none

[2:38:06] of which are in statute. And so those don't apply to your decision today.

[2:38:11] Um, in terms of the public comment you're hearing today, as explained

[2:38:16] earlier, the Montana Constitution requires that the public be afforded

[2:38:19] this opportunity to comment and also that you do more than merely listenit

[2:38:25] and listen to this public comment, but also that you address your comments in

[2:38:28] your decision making today and the pertinent facts on which your decision

[2:38:34] is based in order to facilitate judicial review. [clears throat]

[2:38:38] You've also heard the growth policy, your growth policy itself, I think

[2:38:42] adopted as recently as last year, contemplates support zoning

[2:38:48] and you have an obligation by law to substantially comply with the growth

[2:38:53] policy. The issues in question of roads and contiguity has been addressed and

[2:38:58] refuted. And in Montana, roads and highways are not considered a barrier to

[2:39:02] this. And again, you have those caseations in my letter. And the same is

[2:39:06] true for administration and enforcement. The legislature provided you the

[2:39:10] opportunity to levy for that. And so that's not a justification either. Um

[2:39:15] the staff court makes clear the county only has the authority granted by the

[2:39:19] legislature pursuant to statute and we agree with that.

[2:39:23] The legislature conveyed the power to petition to the people and gave you the

[2:39:28] authority to adopt citizen initiated zoning which zoning is

[2:39:35] enacted for the public health, safety and welfare. So those statutes must be

[2:39:39] liberally construed to accomplish the objective [clears throat]

[2:39:42] which is adoption zoning. 78% again of the effective owners which is more than

[2:39:48] the required percentage substantially more

[2:39:52] um these signatures in the public comment and testimony majority of the

[2:39:56] public comment and testimony make clear that public interest does require the

[2:40:00] CICD and regulations and you have the authority to adopt them. Arguably, given

[2:40:04] the facts in the record, the decision not to adopt the CICD would be so

[2:40:09] lacking in fact and foundation again would be clearly unreasonable and an

[2:40:13] abuse of discretion. And again, as based on the September 1st letter that I

[2:40:18] submitted and the comments of the petitioners and the public, the majority

[2:40:21] of the public, they've met their burden, I respectfully request that you adopt

[2:40:26] this Ponghorn Meadows citizen initiated zoning.

[2:40:30] Thank you.

[2:40:35] My name is Marina Smith and I will not bore you with my sad story about my

[2:40:38] leaky house and my perform

[2:40:43] um statements for this CICD. But I do want to speak to a comment that Glenn

[2:40:48] Patrick made and that's that this was all part of a big branch at one point

[2:40:53] and I mentioned in my previous comments that we are the lowest downstream user

[2:40:59] of water and it's been extremely difficult for us and while we are under

[2:41:04] conservation easement and our property is protected

[2:41:09] what happens on adjacent properties is also very effective to us. And so if we

[2:41:15] lose the ability to get water to cattle or we lose the ability for wildlife to

[2:41:23] pass through either in connectivity or migration corridors, the whole purpose

[2:41:28] of the 10,000 acres that was purchased to support agriculture and wildlife is

[2:41:34] lost. So largecale potential commercial developments in that area pose a threat

[2:41:40] to us that we're very concerned about. Thank you very much.

[2:41:46] I just need my name in again or

[2:41:51] online. It's like a lease.

[2:41:57] Go ahead.

[2:42:07] Elise, did you have a comment?

[2:42:17] yours. Apparently not.

[2:42:29] I'm sorry. We had some technical difficulties.

[2:42:34] » Turn yours down. >> Okay. Can I Can I still speak?

[2:42:39] Yes. >> Okay.

[2:42:42] » Uh my name is Alicia Rosai and um I own property at 112 Pond Road in um the

[2:42:51] Ponghorn Meadows District. Um I wanted to speak about a few things. I'm I

[2:42:58] apologize. I don't have anything prepared. Um and my husband and I wanted

[2:43:04] to be there in person today but because of some health issues we were not able

[2:43:08] to attend. Um I I wanted to let the people who are concerned first of all

[2:43:15] who are concerned that uh the the group of us who went together to try to um to

[2:43:23] try to create this zoning uh at Prom Meadows are going to somehow come

[2:43:29] together and put a big hotel in the front. On the contrary, that is the very

[2:43:34] reason that we are trying to get this zoning in place is to prevent those kind

[2:43:39] of things from happening. We purchased our property about 35 years ago and we

[2:43:46] have taken our children there uh all of their lives and now that

[2:43:50] they're adults, they're all coming up and bringing their families. And our uh

[2:43:55] intent is to leave this property to our children so that they can continue to

[2:43:59] enjoy and our grandchildren can continue to enjoy um the property

[2:44:06] as they always have. Uh we have noticed as we have come up through the years how

[2:44:11] much growth has happened. Um, when we first started coming there, there were

[2:44:15] just a few cabins right at the very back. And now there are many cabins

[2:44:20] there. And we're concerned about um [clears throat]

[2:44:26] » we were concerned about because we get constantly

[2:44:30] uh things in the mail with people trying to purchase our property. And they're

[2:44:33] typically usually big companies who want to come in and put in bigger things and

[2:44:39] divide these up into tiny little spots. and we we have um covenants. So if

[2:44:48] someone comes in and wants to do something, we would have to pay for the

[2:44:52] attorneys to try to stop that. And and most people who live there don't have

[2:44:57] that kind of funding. So this is to pro protect us so that we don't have to try

[2:45:03] to go to court every time and fight one one person who wants to come in and put

[2:45:08] in a great big hotel or a great big because there's none of us that have

[2:45:11] money to fight someone like that. So, we're asking for these to protect us, to

[2:45:17] protect our children, to protect and and our grandchildren to let them have the

[2:45:23] beauty of the property and the area that we bought into and we bought for a

[2:45:27] reason. Uh, another thing that I wanted to bring up is that um, recently we had

[2:45:34] come up to the property and there was a beautiful elk laying in the middle of

[2:45:39] the road who had been hit by something large and was still alive laying there

[2:45:45] right in the center. And it broke my heart because this is this is an elk

[2:45:52] corridor. This is a pong horn corridor. We have pong horn on our property all

[2:45:56] all summer. And it broke my heart that this poor elk

[2:46:00] had to be hit in that road and lay there and suffer until it died. And this is

[2:46:06] the kind of thing that we get more and more and more traffic up there. This is

[2:46:11] the kind of thing that's going to happen more and more frequently. And I think to

[2:46:16] to protect the wildlife, we have to do something. We have to say we have to

[2:46:23] stand up and try to implement some zoning. Um, the other thing that I

[2:46:29] wanted to say is when we purchased our property

[2:46:32] um, long long ago, there was a a creek that ran through our property and then

[2:46:38] there was also a great big pond there that had been stocked with fish and the

[2:46:44] kids used to love it. They had so much fun from the creek and going down to the

[2:46:49] pond. Right now, that is all dried up because the of the water shortage.

[2:46:56] So, if we continue to allow more and more and more building, right now it's

[2:47:02] just right up the creek. What's going to happen next? We're going to not have

[2:47:06] enough water to even even take care of ourselves.

[2:47:11] And uh the water well is going to have to go down deeper and deeper, which is

[2:47:16] very expensive. And at some point, it's there's not going to be water. So, I am

[2:47:21] very concerned about water. I'm very concerned about wildlife and and I'm

[2:47:27] very concerned about big business coming in and trying to change the very the

[2:47:35] very beauty the very uh beautiful Madison County that we have come to

[2:47:39] love. So I want to say that I'm definitely in support and um I want to

[2:47:45] thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

[2:48:02] Yes. Um if I could. >> Okay.

[2:48:09] » Um my name is Dan Wank. Um uh I'm

[2:48:14] I'm the u former superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and been

[2:48:19] engaged with with different people and different groups and organizations in

[2:48:23] the Madison Valley for a long time. I first came to uh Yellowstone in 20 in

[2:48:30] 1979 as a member of the superintendent staff and my job at that time was

[2:48:36] outreach to local communities and land owners uh surrounding the park the park

[2:48:41] throughout the region. Uh the concept of the Yellowstone ecosystem was first

[2:48:46] discussed in the early 1980s and it was brought by an understanding that the

[2:48:52] health of Yellowstone extends and depends beyond the park boundaries

[2:48:58] especially in places like the Madison Valley in the critical wildlife

[2:49:01] corridors. I returned to Yellowstone as superintendent in 2011. The development

[2:49:07] in the ecosystem had changed dramatically and continues to evolve.

[2:49:12] The amount of development that was eye-opening and the effect on the

[2:49:15] wildlife corridors and natural environment is incremental, substantial

[2:49:19] and increasing. Perhaps one of the best places that this

[2:49:23] is explained was under the May 2016 issue of National Geographic which was

[2:49:28] devoted to Yellowstone in the ecosystem. I commend that to you to see, to look

[2:49:33] at, and to understand the wildlife corridors.

[2:49:37] The work done by individual land owners by placing their lands in conservation

[2:49:41] easements are an important tool used by some concerned land owners as you have

[2:49:46] heard today. But that's a minority of land owners in the area.

[2:49:52] More is needed to protect the wildlife corridors and the natural systems.

[2:49:56] Adopting these citizens initiated zoning initiatives will provide a framework to

[2:50:01] preserve, manage, and provide for appropriate development of these

[2:50:05] critical lands. Most agree that this ecosystem deserves protection.

[2:50:10] Initiatives such as this are a great state step in understanding and

[2:50:14] implementing necessary steps to protect what we all love.

[2:50:19] I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment and I really

[2:50:23] appreciate the work that's been done by local groups to try to preserve this

[2:50:28] incredible resource. Thank you.

[2:50:33] Anyone

[2:50:38] else? >> Yep. Hi,

[2:50:42] my name is Fredley. My sister Alice and I both own property at two Sheep Creek

[2:50:47] Road in Cameron and we stand in support of the CIZD and everyone trying to

[2:50:54] preserve wildlife and preserve our um property in that area.

[2:51:00] Thank you.

[2:51:07] You got good Gary.

[2:51:18] Me Carrie Kensinger.

[2:51:24] » Hi, I'm Carrie Kensinger. Um I we my father he's 95. I'm at his house right

[2:51:31] now. So bear with me if there's any interruptions. Um we have property at 55

[2:51:37] Moonwater Lane up at Reynolds Pass. Um first of all, I'd like to thank the

[2:51:42] commissioners so much for entertaining and listening to all of the very

[2:51:48] wellfounded and great points made for and against. Um, however, I'm going to

[2:51:54] say um with all passion that I am so for these um districts to have some

[2:52:03] regulation and zoning. Um, as a former chairperson for the NIS planning board

[2:52:09] uh before it was dissolved, I know the uh importance of having management and

[2:52:18] especially when it comes to the growth. And just an aside, just something that I

[2:52:24] thought of when I was listening to everybody is that we would do outreach

[2:52:28] for the growth policy and went to the airport commission and the county

[2:52:33] commissioners and the art association and we would ask the question um how

[2:52:38] would you like to see NS 5 years from now? And inevitably there would be

[2:52:42] comments to the effect of we want it to go back to the way it was 50 years ago.

[2:52:49] Well, that train has left the station and if we don't have something in place,

[2:52:56] then it will be left to its own devices, meaning that part of the valley uh in

[2:53:03] the south. Um, we've had the cabin up there since 1994. It was built in 1971.

[2:53:10] I think it was the first cabin that was built on that section of the river. Um

[2:53:15] I'm well aware of the different uh water usages and what's happening with the

[2:53:21] water resources up there and I just would say that it's imperative to have a

[2:53:27] plan to protect the existing resources for the residents and for the wildlife.

[2:53:34] Um it's never too late to do the right thing.

[2:53:38] Uh I support uh having these districts with the zoning

[2:53:44] um implemented so that we have uh the the chance to keep and preserve and

[2:53:50] conserve what we already have up there and enjoy and love. Um I'm very much in

[2:53:56] favor of the citizen initiated zoning because I think that's a very very

[2:54:02] critical part of our democracy. So, thank you for listening and I appreciate

[2:54:07] everybody that's spoken. Thank you,

[2:54:16] » Gary Yak.

[2:54:26] While we wait for Gary, can I speak

[2:54:31] over here? Hi, my name is Rana Sarcis. I'm at 25 Rocky Road South in Cameron

[2:54:39] and um it's part of the Sportsman's Paradise uh subdivision. And I'm just

[2:54:44] speaking here today to uh support uh the CZID initiative and to thank the

[2:54:51] commission and K and the group for advocating so um uh strongly and

[2:54:57] wholeheartedly for this initiative. That is all. Thank you.

[2:55:10] Gary, are you there?

[2:55:23] » We lost Eric. >> Randy, you want to go ahead?

[2:55:28] » Yes, I do. Can you hear me? Yes.

[2:55:32] » Thank you. Um, at the risk of being redundant and wasting more time, um, I'd

[2:55:38] like to have my comments applied to all three zoning district hearings, Sheep

[2:55:42] Mountain, Prong Horn Meadows, and Analopee Basin. Um, my name is Randy

[2:55:48] Arbaggast. I am a resident of Madison County in the Reynolds Pass area,

[2:55:53] specifically at 21 Moonwater Lane with my wife Samantha. I want to express my

[2:55:59] support of CIZD or citizens initiated zoning in all three of the zoning

[2:56:06] districts. Um, my father once told me when I was learning to drive, "Don't

[2:56:12] overdrive your headlights. You won't be able to see what's coming." I think we

[2:56:18] can all understand this metaphor because we all know what's coming. That is

[2:56:24] commercial development. So, commissioners, I urge you to please

[2:56:29] support initiated zoning to primarily stop commercial development in this

[2:56:34] area. Our collective voices need to be heard

[2:56:38] and please, let's not overdrive our headlights. It's not too late. Let's

[2:56:44] plan for the rest of the future. That's it. Thank you very much for listening.

[2:56:49] Thank you for your time.

[2:57:09] Why don't you go ahead, Bill?

[2:57:33] Bill Maslin.

[2:57:54] Finally, maybe I got it right. This is Bill Masslin. Can you hear me? Okay.

[2:57:58] Now, >> yes.

[2:58:00] » Sorry about that. Um, my wife and I I own property up in uh

[2:58:08] the uh Sheep Mountain Zoning District, 133 Sheep Mountain Road. Cameron, we

[2:58:15] strongly support all three of the CIZDS and would like you to include our

[2:58:21] comments in all three. I will not duplicate what others have said, but I

[2:58:25] just wanted to make a point that I think captures a lot of what you've got to

[2:58:30] deal with. And that is the philosophy of think globally, act locally.

[2:58:37] Um when we look at the bigger picture, we can see all kinds of challenges ahead

[2:58:42] of us. But taking on those challenges holistically is oftentimes not possible.

[2:58:48] May not even be within the realm of our control. But we can take actions

[2:58:53] locally. related to that, it's important to look

[2:58:58] at not the perfect because it gets in the way of the good, but what is good

[2:59:05] relative to that local interest. And so in that regard, uh I just

[2:59:11] encourage you to look at this that way, both in terms of geographically as well

[2:59:16] as temporally the time frame. Uh things aren't going to get better. They're not

[2:59:21] going to get easier. Now is the time. And I think the citizens initiated

[2:59:26] zoning accomplishes that task consistent with your policy.

[2:59:31] Thank you.

[2:59:42] » David and Natalie.

[2:59:49] » Yeah. Hello. Uh David Six here. Um my wife Natalie and I own uh property

[2:59:56] currently at 33 Dutchman Trail in Cameron. Um, we've actually owned

[3:00:02] property in the past within the mountain uh proposed district and uh I don't want

[3:00:09] to repeat or take a lot of time to repeat what others have said well um but

[3:00:16] we do wish to um express our strong support for adopting these uh zoning

[3:00:24] districts. Um, I think that uh anyone who would dismiss or discount the risk

[3:00:34] of highdensity commercialization in the area need only look back at what

[3:00:39] happened four years ago and the enormous effort that it took on the part of PRP

[3:00:45] and all the other residents in the area. Uh, not just in time but in their own

[3:00:50] personal finances, which I'm sure is still the case today. Uh there's no

[3:00:55] outside source of funding I'm aware of that that supports this effort. Um but

[3:01:01] anyway, it was a significant effort. We we uh we all felt good about um the

[3:01:08] outcome and and uh appreciated very much the commissioners uh all of you and the

[3:01:14] staff for supporting uh those hearings and and efforts that went on for that

[3:01:19] and and for this new uh effort as well. just so that those of us who own

[3:01:26] property up there um can can look forward to to more years of

[3:01:32] of uh the enjoying the pristine environment, the wildlife

[3:01:37] uh that that that uh inhabits that area. Um, I have no doubt that if we allow

[3:01:45] this to pass along without endorsing it and adopting these uh uh these districts

[3:01:52] that there will be challenges equal to or much greater than what we've already

[3:01:57] faced uh just four years ago. and there it will just set the stage and open the

[3:02:03] door for more of that kind of effort and the enormous effort that it would place

[3:02:09] not only on all the citizens but on you as commissioners as well to deal with

[3:02:14] and address those in the future. So again, uh we would just like to uh

[3:02:21] strongly endorse and and and uh uh state our our uh position in favor of adopting

[3:02:29] these these citizen initiated districts. So that's all I have to say. Thank you

[3:02:34] very much again for your time.

[3:02:45] Chris, you want to go ahead? [clears throat]

[3:02:49] » Sure. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Chris Peekham and I own property at 31

[3:02:55] Tory Road in Cameron. Uh, I don't have anything new that has not already been

[3:03:02] articulated by prior speakers. So, in the interest of brevity, I will say only

[3:03:07] that I fully support uh all three uh proposed citizen initiated zoning

[3:03:14] districts. And I hope that uh although my property is not presently included in

[3:03:20] any of the three, I do hope that one day uh they will there will be a new one

[3:03:25] that will encompass my property or one of the three proposed uh districts will

[3:03:31] grow to include my property. I think they're a fabulous idea and I appreciate

[3:03:35] all the effort that has gone into this by uh PRP. So again, just offering my

[3:03:41] support for all three. Thank you for your time.

[3:03:50] Angie, you want to go ahead

[3:04:32] and Jarbulla.

[3:05:17] Last call for Angie.

[3:05:27] » Eric Nord, >> go ahead.

[3:05:31] » Thank you. Um, my name is Eric Nord. I have property at 79 Highway 287 South.

[3:05:37] It's just south of the 87 intersection. Neighbors with Bob Garrett. I want to

[3:05:43] say thanks to Bob and Marina for their their words and all all the work that

[3:05:49] they've done on this. But I do support the CIZD

[3:05:54] um and really any efforts to kind of limit the uh unplanned growth or the the

[3:06:02] crazy growth that goes on. We've owned about 15 years and and the population in

[3:06:07] that area has tripled. Um and so I you know I appreciate

[3:06:14] uh that you have this Zoom meeting so that we can join the the the meeting. I

[3:06:21] I do appreciate that and I hope you'll uh listen to everybody's comments. Thank

[3:06:27] you.

[3:07:09] Brian

[3:07:13] may be having technical difficulties. >> Brian,

[3:07:18] » excuse me. Angie just text that she is kicked out of the meeting and she can't

[3:07:23] find it. But I just want to let you know that

[3:07:26] that's what happened. I don't expect you to

[3:07:28] » She just disappeared. >> She just disappeared here.

[3:07:34] [clears throat]

[3:07:40] » If you would like to testify, go ahead. >> My name is Dr. Diane Love. I live at

[3:07:47] Ford Greenville Lane in Cameron. And I would like to start out by saying

[3:07:52] that my husband Steve and I right there um fully support this initiative.

[3:07:59] And in sitting in the um first meetings this morning, a

[3:08:05] lot of things were brought up about costs,

[3:08:08] cost of water, cost of health care, cost of hospital issues and so on. And gosh,

[3:08:17] I'm really nervous saying this. When I speak for public for a living, I guess

[3:08:22] that's because I really care about this. I would like to ask you to look at the

[3:08:27] long-term cost if something isn't done. Like Marina said, you know, this might

[3:08:34] be 40 years too late, but it's in all of our hands now to do something about

[3:08:41] this. And there's people who are adamantly, you know, have issues against

[3:08:47] it, which, you know, I hear you and respect you. And I also hear and respect

[3:08:53] what everyone is saying about this. And the bottom line is everybody

[3:08:59] loves this area. We love it or we wouldn't be sitting here all these hours

[3:09:04] and you guys wouldn't be doing what you're doing. And none nobody here has

[3:09:09] said we want a Walmart. We want a love truck stop. We want a Marriott. All we

[3:09:15] want is to preserve what we have. And we want guidelines in place for you helping

[3:09:21] us to do this before it's too late. So I want to thank you for your service.

[3:09:28] And we say that to our police. say thank you and thank you to Kay, Marina, Sam,

[3:09:35] and everybody that's here that's speaking their heart and their soul

[3:09:40] because we all want what's best. So obviously we support this and I would

[3:09:45] like my comments to go in all three of these initiatives. So I'm going to turn

[3:09:50] it over to my much smarter and significant husband.

[3:09:55] Sure. >> Um, when I came here today, my name is

[3:09:59] Steve Law. We live on for Greenland right on the river [clears throat] off

[3:10:04] 28787. I came here putting myself as a judge

[3:10:11] and uh kind of what you're doing here and knowing that you have to make this

[3:10:18] decision. I've been businessman, been on many boards my life. understand how

[3:10:24] tough these decisions are that you have to make.

[3:10:28] But again, my situation is um I was kind of neutral on this thing. Uh my wife's

[3:10:35] big on it. I do support it. I wrote a few checks

[3:10:40] and but also I'm a property rights guy and I don't like the government meddling

[3:10:46] in my situation. Well, this really isn't the government. This is us. This is the

[3:10:51] people that live here. And I mean, you can't get 65%

[3:10:57] of the people to vote for the president of the United States, let alone vote for

[3:11:02] for this referendum. So all I would like to do, all I know listening as a judge,

[3:11:10] the only negatives I've heard is people like that have a con a conservative

[3:11:15] easement, conservation easement, and they kind of did the same thing we're

[3:11:19] trying to it was it's almost the same because nobody can build on on their

[3:11:25] property because they have the easement and we're trying to do the same thing.

[3:11:29] Um, I uh we I have a company and we put

[3:11:35] trusses on an apartment or not an apartment, a hotel in Island Park.

[3:11:42] A great big gigantic hotel. Okay. Well, when you go there in the summer, it is a

[3:11:51] mad house. Didn't used to be. So, how would you like a Love's truck stop on

[3:11:58] 287 and 87? And they somebody said, "Oh,

[3:12:03] we've already ruined the wildlife. Put that thing in and you see what it does

[3:12:07] to wildlife." So, um, and somebody else said, "This is big money driving this."

[3:12:14] No, this isn't this is a grassroots thing that Kay and some others put

[3:12:19] together. And so this is a people's decision. This isn't a government

[3:12:24] decision. And like I said, I respect people too that are against it. But this

[3:12:30] is the majority. And that's what you grew up to do that. But all I can say is

[3:12:36] I was a judge in this deal. I pass it. Thank you.

[3:12:50] Okay. Also,

[3:13:12] I don't think it sounds >> [clears throat]

[3:13:17] » broad public

[3:13:21] one more time. Real short. My name's John Lake and I'm short.

[3:13:27] [laughter] >> Yes. There's a really great and I'm 1511

[3:13:33] Highway 287. There's a really good short Christian

[3:13:40] song starts out, I can only imagine. I can only imagine. Think of that song.

[3:13:50] What my eyes would see

[3:13:56] in a valley without protection

[3:14:00] without rules and guardrails. I can only imagine open storage

[3:14:07] of 87 truck stops, trailer parks, pop stores,

[3:14:13] and a degraded Madison River. It takes courage

[3:14:19] to make guard rails. And I encourage the support of all these CI

[3:14:25] areas.

[3:14:32] Believe I understand that after the online comments there I could come up

[3:14:35] again. So um follow us a rebuttal really quickly. I full I can't promise that

[3:14:41] because um I just want to address our judge

[3:14:46] Steve here who says this it's not the government and and and I hope that it

[3:14:50] was not a misconr that that's what I believe that hey the government's after

[3:14:55] us. I actually applaud the effort. I applaud the intention. Um but I do think

[3:15:02] that some of this has come about in bad faith. It's not representative of the

[3:15:06] the public. Um and and and also I understand that um in terms of I respect

[3:15:14] the commission's decision-making ability here, but it has come to you from

[3:15:19] another governing body that has put these things together and it's it's

[3:15:24] almost today it looks like a binary decision whether or not we will adopt it

[3:15:28] or not. and and and that is without having addressed my concerns about the

[3:15:36] the um the provisions of these uh zones which are again somebody mentioned that

[3:15:42] they were all the same. They're very similar. Um to address that

[3:15:46] specifically, I have no desire to have commercial uh endeavor. I wouldn't know

[3:15:52] how I don't know how to make money. I just work my job for a living. But I do

[3:15:58] I did specifically look for 40 acres where there would be enough room that I

[3:16:02] could build a home small home. We have a thousand acres that we're trying to not

[3:16:05] thousand a thousand square feet that we would like to build once we have money

[3:16:09] because we don't have a lot of money and then someday maybe an out cabin for my

[3:16:14] daughter and I have five children. But as the provisions are stated I would be

[3:16:19] allowed one primary building, one auxiliary building and one other

[3:16:22] building. Our dream if we were included in these zones would effectively be

[3:16:27] crushed. And we looked for a very long time and we rejected the Sphinx Mountain

[3:16:32] subdivision. There's Hog something over there because 20 acres that we were

[3:16:36] going to buy because of the covenants were effectively reduced to a single

[3:16:39] acre of usable land. and and we wrote a letter to the to that area and we said

[3:16:45] we would like to be lot 65 exempt this from this covenant because we love the

[3:16:50] area but we want this to be a place for our family to come enjoy for generations

[3:16:55] but the provisions as stated for all of them you know speaking der mainly for

[3:16:59] the for this topic and applying them if you will to all the rest some of these

[3:17:02] comments I've already emailed for the other ones are the fact that if adopted

[3:17:07] these provisions would prevent my family forever from using the property property

[3:17:11] for the purpose that we bought it for because the intention is to prevent

[3:17:16] commercial endeavors from coming in. That has not ever been our intention. It

[3:17:20] is a beautiful piece of property. We would love to spend our summers there.

[3:17:23] We would love to grow it over time. I don't have money to do that with today.

[3:17:29] um speaking to I am not aware that there are ex there's external money coming

[3:17:34] into this um either but I I do get the sense with for my own senses from my

[3:17:39] eyes that sees a very professional website persistent hours that are spent

[3:17:44] into this a professional um law firm representing

[3:17:49] you know the the the positive side of this I feel passionate about it because

[3:17:54] they've had three years to prepare their case and we essentially have beginning

[3:18:00] today and referencing the statute I'm aware that beginning once that if that

[3:18:06] zone was accepted there would be six months to object um we as citizens some

[3:18:11] of us would look to the commission like what can you do for us that is not your

[3:18:15] role if if our us as citizens wanted to come together and object to this we

[3:18:19] would have to mass amass the same kind of support that's been garnered over the

[3:18:24] last three years we would have to do that in six months and so My my prayer

[3:18:30] to the to the committee is effectively that they consider ways to buy us time

[3:18:36] so that the opposing um voice can be heard. I am concerned that that 60% that

[3:18:42] everybody's leaning on the statute for was acquired in bad faith that that that

[3:18:47] well-intentioned if there was somebody like me who objected they would go find

[3:18:51] somebody else that approves so that they can get their way and I as an individual

[3:18:55] citizen would have to amass support to object to that within the next six

[3:18:59] months. Um Alicia Rosati was concerned they don't have money to file for

[3:19:04] covenants. That's our position today, that within the next six months, we

[3:19:09] would have to amass a a opposition to this in order to legally defeat the the

[3:19:16] statute that's before us right now. And so I'm concerned that it's it's it's a

[3:19:20] foregone conclusion. And it's been said that over the course of time, some of

[3:19:25] people are hoping that they will be enveloped into this. If my property was

[3:19:29] eventually enveloped into this, despite my objection, it would be now and into

[3:19:35] perpetuity, my family could never could never achieve the dream that we bought

[3:19:41] the property for. And so I would ask that more time be bought and that if

[3:19:48] it's possible for the commission to go look for those property owners that

[3:19:53] maybe didn't hear about this are the locals represented as well as the

[3:19:57] foreigners from Connecticut and Pennsylvania and all their parcels that

[3:20:01] are just people temporary. Is there a way to know that? I don't think we know

[3:20:04] because we haven't had time. Thank you. >> [clears throat]

[3:20:09] » Are we allow rebuttal?

[3:20:12] » Don't call it a rebuttal. Call it a public comment. And he said I'll take a

[3:20:16] second. I'll take a second. Um question.

[3:20:28] This this instructed me that I was allowed to come up a second.

[3:20:31] » Okay.

[3:20:35] Have any more public comment? We got a Robert O'Brien.

[3:20:39] » Okay.

[3:20:42] » Hi. Sorry for the delay here. I have a baby here that delayed me from talking.

[3:20:46] Uh my name is Robert O'Brien. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents uh that

[3:20:51] own a parcel uh in the Bigorn district. Uh which is not being talked about

[3:20:55] today. Uh I actually reside out of state in Henderson, Nevada. Uh coincidentally,

[3:21:00] the same city that uh the board members Jerry Rambula and KS live in. Sorry,

[3:21:06] that's my backup backup singer baby here. Uh,

[3:21:10] commissioners, I'd like to thank Kay and the PRP uh group that has established

[3:21:15] that she established for all the work she's been putting in uh to try and

[3:21:18] achieve 60% of votes. Uh, everybody's already said these would be the first

[3:21:23] districts, zoning districts in the county and would set a major precedent.

[3:21:27] Uh I'm sure none of us want to see uh crowded development uh like Bosezeman uh

[3:21:34] especially where where K resides. Uh so today in support of managing uh

[3:21:39] development and keeping the character of the area uh we really f thought we

[3:21:43] should lead by example. Uh we did this rather than supporting

[3:21:47] these CZDs. We voluntarily imposed covenants on our

[3:21:51] own parcel. uh we did not wish to or vote to impose covenants on 40% of our

[3:21:58] neighbors. That's what's going on today. This is not 60% deciding uh to protect

[3:22:04] their land. This is 60% deciding to impose restrictions on their neighbors.

[3:22:09] Uh self-imposed covenants are voluntary zoning. The CIDDS today are not

[3:22:15] voluntary. Uh this is essentially tyranny of the majority. Right? If you

[3:22:20] hit 60%, you are now inflicting all of these restrictions on your neighbors

[3:22:25] whether you like them or not. Uh so there's two questions I have today. Uh

[3:22:29] and these can be answered later. Uh first, what is the limit on the number

[3:22:32] of votes per parcel? So this particular district has only seven parcels. Uh does

[3:22:39] one parcel with four owners have four times the voting right of a single owner

[3:22:44] parcel? Uh is that spelled out anywhere? and has

[3:22:48] that been verified? Uh the same question applies to the other districts. And that

[3:22:52] also leads me to uh another question. Why is this split up into four zoning

[3:22:58] districts uh uh with three of which we're talking about today? Why not one

[3:23:03] large zoning district if we're trying to protect the whole valley, right? Uh

[3:23:07] gerrymandering. So, it's been brought up multiple times today. That's the number

[3:23:11] one word that keeps coming to my head today. Uh is gerrymandering. These CICDs

[3:23:16] have absolutely been gerrymandered into three small portions so that we can get

[3:23:22] 60% of the votes in each portion rather than do it for the whole valley. Uh so

[3:23:26] I'd close today by asking uh the 60% of the majority who voted for this to

[3:23:32] follow our lead and put restricted covenants on your own properties. Uh

[3:23:36] we've done that. We're trying to be good stewards of the area. Uh we've been here

[3:23:40] for decades. You do not need to try and impose these on your neighbors. this is

[3:23:44] not the path forward for this. Uh let's let's find an alternative to this. Uh

[3:23:49] whether that means waiting to implement these or looking at alternatives. Uh uh

[3:23:55] if you'd like to impose rules on your neighbors without their consent, maybe

[3:23:58] California is a better retirement location for you.

[3:24:16] Looks like

[3:24:23] we're out of public comment. I guess we could conclude this hearing.

[3:24:29] And

[3:24:33] with that, I guess

[3:24:42] this decision date.

[3:24:48] » So, you're saying we're done with listening to public comment, you think?

[3:24:52] Um, how does the uh if people wanted to discuss further about what other like

[3:24:58] rebuttals and stuff? How do we move forward with that

[3:25:02] or do [clears throat] we do we just listen to

[3:25:07] » just trying to understand the process? Colton,

[3:25:09] » come on. Yeah, I would just call for additional public comment. Anyone else

[3:25:13] has anything else to say? Say it. [clears throat]

[3:25:18] Not then, uh, you could entertain a motion to take this all under

[3:25:22] advisement. Make a decision at future date. Entertain a motion to make a

[3:25:25] decision if you feel have enough information.

[3:25:29] It's up to you as commissioners. >> And once public comments, it's

[3:25:34] exhausted. There's nothing.

[3:25:38] So, I think there was some interest in rebottling some of the um answer some of

[3:25:43] these questions that they had and I personally would like to hear um what

[3:25:48] the what some of the answers to these some of these comments would be.

[3:25:56] So, I

[3:26:00] » it's chairman's prerogative. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, what I'd like to see

[3:26:05] is let's take this information that we gathered on advisor and set a a date to

[3:26:12] make [clears throat] the final decision. And I I think I have that on the agenda

[3:26:17] for September 15th. Is that right?

[3:26:25] November 15th

[3:26:33] to do that. But for the previous we [clears throat]

[3:26:37] did Yes. That was the ninth day. Oh, is it? Oh,

[3:26:41] I'm sorry. >> Uh, the previous one that was the nth if

[3:26:46] you want to do with that same day. >> The 15th.

[3:26:50] » The 15th is the Tuesday. [clears throat] >> We got to continue on the other one,

[3:26:56] » right? to do the >> for Commissioner Gilman's concerns. If

[3:27:03] he'd like to hear rebuttals, I think we should do it if those people are present

[3:27:08] » because we could we still have some time on this particular unless we wanted to

[3:27:13] recess for lunch or something. But uh we do have a little time to listen to a few

[3:27:18] more comments on uh you know some of these uh

[3:27:24] concerns.

[3:27:28] Anybody here want to pull up a rebuttal? >> Sure.

[3:27:36] » Council owner at seventh and modern lane. I do not

[3:27:42] I do not want Anderson to that by the way and um

[3:27:47] I hadn't opted to rebut because I feel like the facts stand for themselves but

[3:27:53] I do want to answer your questions and if do you have specific questions that I

[3:27:59] could answer I'm happy to do. >> Yeah. I mean I just thought I I know the

[3:28:03] gentleman in the back there had had offered to uh discuss some more. So, I

[3:28:08] just kind of was curious to see what he wanted to say as far where I was going

[3:28:11] with that. >> Oh, Jerry. Oh,

[3:28:16] » well, I just

[3:28:22] » Are you going to talk about the average? >> That's what I was going to talk about.

[3:28:28] » Sounds like we have opportunity to speak here. Okay.

[3:28:30] » We were trying to be respectful of what we understood were the

[3:28:35] orders of the of the meeting. Uh I'm still willing to do that. I want to be

[3:28:40] respectful certainly of your time as well.

[3:28:42] » Uh so why don't you speak to your piece because I just collect my thoughts.

[3:28:48] » Okay. Thank you. So the um there were several things that were said that of

[3:28:53] course each side will say well they said this and it wasn't true. They said this

[3:28:56] and it wasn't true. And I don't think that that is really productive for you

[3:29:00] to hear that back and forth. But I would say we do have documented evidence of

[3:29:05] all of our outreach for over three years. Uh newsletters, community

[3:29:09] meetings, uh when I personally would be calling people to make sure they were

[3:29:14] aware of things. Mr. Waters has been involved in some of our Zooms. He is on

[3:29:20] our email list. So I mean there's no there's no last minute notification

[3:29:24] unless somebody um gave information other than whatever the rest of the

[3:29:29] public received. And as far as uh people who are saying that they are very

[3:29:36] conservationminded, I would say that not all of the people

[3:29:39] that were speaking against this have conservation easements on their property

[3:29:43] and that one particular large parcel has been for sale for a couple of years. And

[3:29:48] it could be that some of the motivate motivification motivation behind

[3:29:53] opposing this is because they don't want to do what is going to be in the zoning

[3:29:58] regulations. if these regulations are adopted and therefore they're just

[3:30:03] opposing it now in anticipation of doing something else. So I didn't really want

[3:30:07] to do that but I just wanted to explain that to you Mr. Gilman because you

[3:30:11] haven't been involved in this as long as Mr. and I or Mr. Todd and you weren't

[3:30:15] here but the RV park situation came before the commission and we have a long

[3:30:22] history of involvement in the community and being very transparent. our

[3:30:27] regulations and our maps have been on our website since August of 2025.

[3:30:32] We have in our we actually said postcards for property owners in the

[3:30:38] Reynolds Pass area, not just people in CISDS letting them know that the

[3:30:43] regulations and maps are on the website and please comment. So, I mean, I feel

[3:30:47] like we've done an exemplary job of letting people know what is going on.

[3:30:53] And I'll stop with that. And then Jerry, did you want to say anything?

[3:31:02] Not to hammer another nail in the coffin, but I mean for you not to be

[3:31:05] aware of what's been going on in Madison Valley for like the last four years. I

[3:31:10] mean, everybody that lives at that valley is aware of this, but unless you

[3:31:16] and one of our challenges in fact I can tell you is

[3:31:21] communicating. This may be answering why why we had to split up because we have

[3:31:26] limited resources. Five people in terms of trying to contact that many people

[3:31:31] who don't live here. You gentlemen know this as well as anybody does. 90% of the

[3:31:36] people don't live here full-time, let alone trying to contact them on a

[3:31:40] regular basis. It's an incredible challenge. It's taken us that long to

[3:31:44] get any kind of consistent messaging out. So, it's not without K's point.

[3:31:49] It's not without a humongous three-year effort that we've had an ongoing effort

[3:31:54] to communicate, make sure our communication is correct and accurate

[3:31:58] and legal. It's been a process. And with limited resources,

[3:32:03] when you don't have enough employees, you have to trim the business back. You

[3:32:08] guys know that we didn't have we don't have enough people to reach out

[3:32:14] in such remote areas and communicate. we're just there's just not enough of us

[3:32:18] or enough money quite frankly to answer the question about why things suddenly

[3:32:23] be split up. Um the second part is uh

[3:32:30] I would hate to think that I would crush somebody's dream of

[3:32:36] living in Montan or serving Medicine Valley and nor would I even want to be

[3:32:40] any part of that. Uh but the the other side of that for those of us

[3:32:47] who all appreciate this area is and and believe me I waited 30 years to finding

[3:32:52] add on to my house. What happens if in the interim of us

[3:32:57] waiting to do something that somebody does build

[3:33:02] motel sits next to your property?

[3:33:07] What do you tell your family that they can go swim in their pool? I mean pro

[3:33:12] progress is happening. I think that's the message that we're trying to deliver

[3:33:16] here. Things were happening rapidly. If we don't do things now, who does? And

[3:33:23] will your property be what it was 20 years ago? Will it be that same

[3:33:29] piece? It won't be. We know that it's happening fast. Just look over the

[3:33:35] hill. And these gentlemen live it every day. Um,

[3:33:41] I think that's the final thing. I think, um,

[3:33:45] yeah, I don't want to take in all your time.

[3:33:47] » Okay. Thank you. >> Appreciate your

[3:33:52] We have one more on the TV. >> Okay,

[3:33:57] » Dina, go ahead. >> Hi, good afternoon everybody. Um, I'm

[3:34:02] hailing from Michigan. I live in the Manaste National Forest. My just to give

[3:34:06] you background, my husband's born and raised in Detroit. I was born and raised

[3:34:09] in New York City. We're both first generation Italians. We bought property

[3:34:13] in Cameron Valley and we're in the zone that didn't have enough votes. But I

[3:34:17] just want to speak a little bit to this um on conservation. So we own 10 acres

[3:34:22] in the Manatee National Forest, which is very hard to come by on a blue ribbon

[3:34:26] trout stream, Pier Marquette. We do a ton of conservation here. So I applaud

[3:34:32] 100%. My daughter's also a fish and wildlife biologist. that's out west. So

[3:34:36] applaud. Um and yes, you do have we do have to do something. But hearing people

[3:34:42] I I bought land 20 acres. I have covenants. However, my covenants are not

[3:34:48] as restrictive of what is being proposed. So my concern is I just want

[3:34:53] to be allowed to follow my covenants. But when you read the document, it says

[3:35:00] they have to be enforced or if they I to me there should be

[3:35:05] looking at homeowners that want to do homeowner stuff. I think we can parcel

[3:35:09] that out and and I can speak to Kay and the whole group. They've been nothing

[3:35:14] but open, honest, whatever. Um, I can't speak enough of that and I wasn't

[3:35:20] following it close enough to catch this last piece. But I think with the whole

[3:35:24] commercialization, I totally understand. It's starting to rain so I'm going to go

[3:35:28] inside in case it makes too loud. I understand the commercialization. I

[3:35:32] think there may be a way um to look at this in a different that when you talk

[3:35:37] about commercialization of property, you can create restrictions

[3:35:43] to you know

[3:35:48] come through and widen 287 and create it all the way and destroy it through the

[3:35:52] whole Tetons and National Forest which is insane that even anybody would even

[3:35:56] speak of that. But I think there's a marriage in the middle here and and I

[3:36:02] know Kay and her group are willing to meet us in the middle. Um and this

[3:36:06] sometimes it comes out this way and it flushes out. I implore everybody to

[3:36:11] stick with it. Um let's work through this. Let's get it in place, but let's

[3:36:16] get the people that do have property that are I want to build on my property.

[3:36:20] I'm just not at the place yet. Um we're getting there. But I I I want to have it

[3:36:25] for my kids, too. and I have 20 acres and if those the loophole that could

[3:36:31] potentially lose that covenant then I would have 20 acres I can't do nothing

[3:36:35] with. So that is my concern. um not that it can't get resolved, it can be

[3:36:40] resolved, but I think we can all come together with the committee as well as

[3:36:44] this initiative with the and get a good marriage in between. And I think we can

[3:36:49] parse out the commercialization um because those are two different ways

[3:36:54] you can zone it. You can zone it as all residential, you can zone it all

[3:36:58] commercial. we can figure out another way to do this um that protects the

[3:37:04] sanctity of the land and what it was there for and protect the wildlife,

[3:37:09] protect what we need. But yet those that are here that want to build a home um

[3:37:14] can do so and keep it even with their co their covenants that they do have

[3:37:19] somehow grandfather them in indefinite. So that protects them for the purchase

[3:37:24] for the reason why we why I chose that property was to have my retirement home

[3:37:28] out there and have my kids have a home too on the property. So again, I I

[3:37:34] applaud it. I know it's not an easy place for anybody to be. I am totally in

[3:37:38] support of doing something for sure. Um, but I do think this is a good

[3:37:43] opportunity to get some more information and tweak it a little bit and maybe just

[3:37:48] really parse out the whole commercialization of you can't put in a

[3:37:52] hotel, you can't put in a a buck B, you can't put in, you know, um, a Motel 6 or

[3:37:58] you can't put in a property and put a bunch of little cabins in it and shove

[3:38:02] people on there. You know, I totally get that. Um, and that's not something that

[3:38:06] we wanted to do. We're conservationists. We have a conservation easement and we

[3:38:11] stick to the here and adhere to it. And that would be what we would steward with

[3:38:14] our 20 acres, but I need to be able to build on my 20 acres, not potentially

[3:38:20] lose that covenant if I don't follow if they somehow are not followed or not

[3:38:24] enforced. And I don't know what that means. What does that mean? You know,

[3:38:28] exactly who what who enforces? We don't have a homeowners association to

[3:38:32] enforce. So technically per the law, [clears throat]

[3:38:35] the way it's written, I would not have I wouldn't be protected by the covenant

[3:38:39] rule. So again, I'm all about working together. I'm all about making this

[3:38:44] work. I'm all about protecting the water, all of it. I get it. Um but I do

[3:38:49] think we need to speak to people who live there, that have property, that

[3:38:53] have dreams, and I think there's a good marriage in the middle. We just got to

[3:38:56] get there. Thank you.

[3:39:02] Okay. With I think we'll conclude. Come on out.

[3:39:08] » Oh, okay. Is there any more public comment? Sorry.

[3:39:21] » Yeah. If there's no more public comment, maybe the commissioners can entertain a

[3:39:25] motion to close the hearing for the particular district.

[3:39:34] » Second that. >> Okay. So hearing more comment we have

[3:39:39] motion second to conclusion hearing. Any further discussion hearing for the vote?

[3:39:47] Mr. a little tie.

[3:39:52] » Procedurally, what we're discussing is continuation of the first hearing to the

[3:39:56] 9th and then you're anticipating decisions on the 15th just so we're

[3:40:02] being open with everyone. >> Yes. Um

[3:40:08] yeah

[3:40:11] sure is maybe would you it could be a good idea to try to advertise the next

[3:40:17] day be making a decision. So but maybe you want to set it out an

[3:40:21] additional week from that. >> Okay.

[3:40:27] » Thank you. I agree with that. >> At your discretion

[3:40:31] » is there a statutory requirement for that?

[3:40:35] No, unless you're if you want to notice by newspaper, you'd have to notice for

[3:40:39] two weeks, >> which month,

[3:40:42] » but in terms of going for a resolution,

[3:40:54] » what's your prerogative, Mr. Chairman? [clears throat]

[3:41:06] I think it would be good to advertise it if we can. I really do. That's more

[3:41:11] transparent and

[3:41:14] said it'll be on the agenda for the 15th, September 15th. So to make the

[3:41:20] final decision on this hearing and then I guess probably

[3:41:24] all of them are done.

[3:41:28] you it would run once if you did that, but since there's no statutory

[3:41:34] requirement, you don't need to have the 10e period.

[3:41:37] » So, we're saying that we'll make the final decision on all three of these on

[3:41:41] the 15th. >> Yes.

[3:41:42] » Is that what you're telling me? And so, but we will uh continue the um comments

[3:41:49] on the previous u proposed uh CICD on the 9th 10th, isn't

[3:41:59] it? >> N

[3:42:05] Okay, you're right. The nth. You're right. [clears throat]

[3:42:08] Okay. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And then um but we

[3:42:15] still have the next hearing to >> Yes.

[3:42:21] » Okay.

[3:42:26] Thanks. Did we not make a motion? I thought you

[3:42:30] had We could do that. >> You made a motion to close the hearing,

[3:42:35] » but no motion has been made. >> Oh, then I would move to do what I just

[3:42:40] said. Okay,

[3:42:43] » I will second that. >> Okay, so we have a motion to second

[3:42:46] continue the [clears throat]

[3:42:50] J mountain citizen of district hearing September 9th

[3:42:59] to make the final decision for all of the hearings on September

[3:43:05] 15th of our meetings. Any further discussion?

[3:43:10] Right. I will call to the board. >> I didn't quite hear motion except

[3:43:17] » pardon me. >> I thought I heard you say the night.

[3:43:21] » Yeah, >> he was reiterating that there will be a

[3:43:24] continuation on the sheep mountain one for behind but the decision on all of

[3:43:29] these will be granted I mean will be made on the 15th.

[3:43:37] » Yeah. >> Okay. All right.

[3:43:41] Any further discussion on call of the vote? Mr. T.

[3:43:44] » Hi, >> Mr. Hi.

[3:43:47] » Chair. Okay, we'll take a break until 1:00. Thank you everybody.

[3:44:07] Grab my glass

[3:44:20] every

[3:44:23] day.

[3:44:52] That's what I'm saying.

[3:45:04] And that was unmuted.

[3:45:12] » Okay, it's one o'ce.

[3:45:19] » Thankfully, I've never had which is the ation of the

[3:45:29] analopee bas

[3:45:35] district. So with that it is exactly 1:00.

[3:45:42] I'll start the hearing at one o'clock and we'll take public comments.

[3:45:49] » Thank you. uh before uh so I will state that for the record the comments that I

[3:45:57] made for the other two CICDs apply to Analopee Basa but I want to take my

[3:46:02] moments to address some confusion in the room that I think it's been picked up

[3:46:07] online and the confusion is that if there's a 40 acre minimum in the

[3:46:13] regulations that you cannot build for 20 acre parcel and that is absolutely not

[3:46:17] the case. So the way the regulations state very clearly is that you your

[3:46:24] property is grandfathered and therefore you have 20 acres now you could build on

[3:46:29] it just as your covenants say that you can build on it. If you have more than

[3:46:35] 40 acres in the future the property can't be reduced to less than 40 acre

[3:46:39] parcels. That is in the interest of uh the migration quarter just as Matthew

[3:46:45] was explaining earlier. So in no case in fact we have spreadsheets of the

[3:46:50] covenants of everything that we had access to which is I think all of them

[3:46:56] except Mr. O'Brien's I didn't know they had covenants on their land now they

[3:47:00] didn't before uh that the in those covenants commercial dis

[3:47:09] commercial development is almost universally

[3:47:12] uh not allowed. So that is when people bought their property and they the

[3:47:18] covenant said no commercial development that is not a surprise to people. We

[3:47:21] were very deliberate about that. It also in most cases will say that 20 acres can

[3:47:28] be divided into five acres and we don't address any of that. We don't address

[3:47:33] short-term rentals. We really are not. The only thing that we are asking for is

[3:47:38] no billboards, that for future construction have downward-f facing

[3:47:43] lights, and that you adhere to Madison County fire regulations,

[3:47:48] and that you do not have recreational fires within certain number of feet of a

[3:47:53] flammable structure or a flammable body without it being in a a pit or a uh some

[3:48:01] sort of container. that'll be monitored at all times, which is again Madison

[3:48:04] County fire regulations. And then we also say that if you're going to have an

[3:48:08] open burn, [clears throat] that you need to follow Madison County fire

[3:48:12] regulations, which requires a burn permit. So, we're just mirroring the

[3:48:17] county in those things. The unique thing in the districts before us now, and some

[3:48:22] speakers are not in those districts, is the commercial development. And the

[3:48:27] reason that it was created this way is because so many of the covenants cannot

[3:48:31] be enforced because there's no HOAs and it pits neighbor against neighbor in

[3:48:36] enforcing it. So people will call us and say what can I do about this and we can

[3:48:40] say you can't do anything because you're not enforcing your ho

[3:48:45] your covenants and that's not what we do. We do not deal with people's

[3:48:48] covenants. We're separate. The regulations also clearly state that in a

[3:48:53] case of covenants versus uh regulations, the stricter the two apply. And on

[3:48:58] almost all of the cases, the covenants are far more strict than the

[3:49:01] regulations. We do not tell you how uh what color your building could be, what

[3:49:06] kind of roof you can have. We do not do any of those things. So, I just like to

[3:49:10] clarify that for the record and then I'll just give this to Sarah.

[3:49:36] Hi, Maline Mason 97. A um I'd like to continue my comments over from the last

[3:49:42] zoning districts and pertaining to Analope Basin specifically. Um just in

[3:49:46] terms of the levy, I have the following information. If Madison County fell into

[3:49:50] the minority and chose to put a 1 mil levy on Animal Basin zoning district

[3:49:54] based on 2026 tax values, the county would raise $236.87

[3:50:00] across all the 28 property owners. >> Thank you.

[3:50:17] I do want to just uh put into the public record my comments earlier member uh

[3:50:21] meetings. My name is Samantha Arbaggast. My address is 21 Moonwater Lane in

[3:50:26] Cameron. Uh my husband and I own a home down there and I'm also board member of

[3:50:30] preserve Pass. Um some specific things um that I wanted to point out with with

[3:50:35] regards to public health and safety for the Analopee Basin. um district. When

[3:50:42] we're speaking about um response times and distances, uh I just want to point

[3:50:48] out that the um distance to the uh Analopee [clears throat] Basin

[3:50:54] District from the Inspire Station is 48 to 50 miles. That's um considerable

[3:50:59] travel distance for emergency vehicles. And for uh police response, it would be

[3:51:04] 61.5 miles from the Sheriff's Office, which is a considerable distance as

[3:51:10] well. Um and then the remaining of my comments, I'll spare you reading the

[3:51:13] whole letter again. You've heard it. I just like to enter them into the record.

[3:51:18] Thank you. Ryan's in support of the districts.

[3:51:25] [clears throat]

[3:51:28] » Keith Shine, 25 Big Ben Road in Cameron. Uh my wife and I again are not in any of

[3:51:34] proposed districts, but we're here in all of them.

[3:51:38] I don't envy the commission the task you have considering these proposed zoning

[3:51:43] districts resolving differences between people finding common ground. These are

[3:51:48] not easy things easy things to do. My wife serves on the board of our local

[3:51:54] homeowners association. Got 14 homes, 40 members. were often in conflict just in

[3:52:00] that small neighborhood. And some of us don't think there should

[3:52:05] be any rules at all because they want to exempt themselves from conflict on that

[3:52:10] basis. Respectfully, I don't see it that way. I

[3:52:16] believe society's rules create the basis for people to be neighbors even when

[3:52:21] they don't know each other or even in some cases when they don't like each

[3:52:25] other. When we built our home, we had to submit

[3:52:29] plans to our association for the size of the home, color of the siding, color of

[3:52:35] the roof. We didn't think that was ownorous or limited our freedom or took

[3:52:41] away our private property rights. We thought that was the basis for us to

[3:52:46] join our neighborhood because that was the neighborhood rule.

[3:52:51] We got to think as individuals that our rights are greater or more fundamental

[3:52:57] than the rights of the majority around us. At the same time, it's wrong for a

[3:53:02] majority to impose rules that deny fundamental individual rights.

[3:53:08] But the zoning guidelines offered by PRP's plans don't do that. The proposed

[3:53:14] zoning doesn't supplant or take primacy over current neighborhood existing

[3:53:20] bylaws or covenants. They don't attempt a way to rest away individual property

[3:53:26] rights. Zoning has as its primary goal keeping in check large commercial

[3:53:32] development that threatens all owners and the rural

[3:53:37] and agrarian character of the Madison Valley and it's blunted but limited

[3:53:44] natural resources. Such rules are in every homeowner's best

[3:53:49] interest and advance the protection of the land. It's the right and necessary

[3:53:55] thing to do, particularly since built built into [clears throat] the rules, is

[3:54:02] the flexibility to change them in the future. Of course, there's opposition.

[3:54:09] People don't want rules in their way. They don't want government telling them

[3:54:14] what to do, especially with their private property.

[3:54:18] But the Madison Valley, its people, and the wildlife are not in the Wild West.

[3:54:25] We're way past that because our population has grown and is projected to

[3:54:30] further grow. The land faces severe threats.

[3:54:35] Governance is needed. Controlled growth is needed. Zoning is needed. Please do

[3:54:44] write by the majority on the land and pass the zoning districts. Thank you.

[3:54:58] Ma'am Townsen 200 Jensen Road Cameron. And this time I have a letter

[3:55:03] to read and to be submitted to the record

[3:55:12] to the commissioners.

[3:55:16] I topped the rise and beheld creation and only the tongues of angels could

[3:55:23] tell what I have seen. I doubt there's anyone in the room for whom these words

[3:55:28] have not responded res resonated every time they [clears throat] come over

[3:55:33] Norris Hill and behold the Madison Valley.

[3:55:37] We never tire of it. Hopefully, we never will. We're here today because of an

[3:55:44] opportunity to give this awe to our children and to all those lucky enough

[3:55:50] to top that rise. This opportunity is inspired by a

[3:55:55] community effort over several years to protect the land, its resources, and a

[3:56:02] way of life which has brought us and all those before us to this place.

[3:56:09] But we can't do it without you. As commissioners, you're our avatars.

[3:56:16] You represent the beliefs and uphold the rights of this count of the county

[3:56:21] residents in the complex world of government.

[3:56:26] Your work is difficult and often unappreciated.

[3:56:30] But you're more than just county officials. You too live here and love

[3:56:35] this valley. But it's you who decide if the Madison

[3:56:40] Valley will roll over rather than protect itself from the inevitable.

[3:56:46] and unspeakable permanent damage of unbridled

[3:56:51] commercial development. You face an enormous burden.

[3:56:59] As you wrestle with this decision to support this community effort to protect

[3:57:03] the land through CICDs, let the place itself speak to you.

[3:57:11] The chaos of the river, the spring, the wind sculpted grasses of midsummer,

[3:57:20] the herds as they gather in the fall to mate with the naive belief that they

[3:57:26] always will. These are voices.

[3:57:31] These are pleas. These are responsibilities.

[3:57:38] I'll close with the words of Terry Tempest Williams.

[3:57:44] Very hard not to be. This is the hour of the land

[3:57:51] when our mistakes and short companies shortcomings

[3:57:55] must be placed in the perspective of time.

[3:58:10] My name is Diane Olaf and I along with my family own the Olaf ranch at 850 I

[3:58:16] weigh 287 in Cameron. Like my remarks from the earlier meeting this morning to

[3:58:23] be forwarded and I do have another statement as well. I as I've listened

[3:58:28] today I have heard an awful lot about the commercial development and I have

[3:58:32] not heard a single person in this room including our families who has said they

[3:58:38] want commercial development. My issue is that there's a lot more in

[3:58:45] those petitions besides just limiting commercial development. And I urge the

[3:58:50] commissioners to to truly look through there and see how those impact

[3:58:56] the petition has statements that impact other things besides commercial

[3:59:02] development.

[3:59:07] Thank you.

[3:59:13] My name is Sandra Olaf Kokerta and I am here along with my sister and my family

[3:59:18] representing the Olaf ranch. And I would like my comments from earlier to be

[3:59:24] included in this this zoning meeting as well. And I have um one question

[3:59:30] regarding if these restrictions are not as strict as many

[3:59:37] of the homeowner associations, then why are those properties even

[3:59:42] included in these boundaries? I just have a question on that and I'm

[3:59:47] hoping that as commissioners you can look at that and and decide if that is

[3:59:52] necessarily where the battery should be. Thank you.

[4:00:06] Having

[4:00:13] a view here, gentlemen. Uh name's Jerry Rambula property

[4:00:19] water lane Cameron and just ask you my previous comments as

[4:00:27] well as this list.

[4:00:42] Good afternoon. My name is Dave Arterburn. I live at number seven Sturdy

[4:00:47] Lane. We built our home there next to the Grizzly Bar 27 years ago. I want to

[4:00:54] urge you to adopt these citizen initiated zoning districts. I think it's

[4:01:00] the right thing to do and protect our valley. Thank you for your time.

[4:01:14] Hi, my name is Virginia Pova and we own 143 acres at the south end of the uh

[4:01:23] CICD. Um, and I don't live there. I live on

[4:01:30] Highway 20, off of Highway 20 in West Yellowstone. And I just want to paint a

[4:01:36] picture of what that used to look like when I came over Tari Pass

[4:01:43] back in 1975. It's pretty much an open valley. And now

[4:01:48] from the top of Tari Pass to the Madison Arm Road which is about five miles. We

[4:01:55] have about 40 driveways. Some are used now, some are

[4:02:01] not. And we have all the biggest gate going into Yellowstone Park. So you can

[4:02:08] imagine the traffic we have there. And there's no speed reductions.

[4:02:14] And in that five miles we have animals crossing with, you know, the

[4:02:22] analopee, believe it or not, come from the Madison Valley over Tari Pass and

[4:02:27] some will summer there in our basin. And we have three named subdivisions.

[4:02:35] We have two KOAs. We have Forest Service roads. We have a county road to Hegen

[4:02:40] Lake. All these things recreational. We have wetlands. We have riperian habitat.

[4:02:47] We have a rodeo. We have two horse rentals. We have a glamping resort. We

[4:02:54] have a private ranch, a couple private ranches. We have all these ATV trails

[4:03:01] beside the road and in the mountains. They're

[4:03:06] constantly running around. And we have three pot dispensaries now.

[4:03:13] marijuana, whatever you want to call it, within that five miles and then starts

[4:03:18] the forest service. So, luckily things quiet down and then we have a river

[4:03:25] corridor there. We lose moose all the time there. And then we have the signs.

[4:03:33] We have all the billboards starting at the base of the pass for Bearw World in

[4:03:37] Idaho, for hotels, for restaurants, for museums,

[4:03:42] for camera stores, for saving wolves. We have we have it all till the Forest

[4:03:48] Service starts. And so, you know, you know, for the hotels and the restaurants

[4:03:54] and everything else in town and so and all this, you know, if you go through

[4:03:59] Idaho in Island Park, you've seen what's happened to that. And, you know, we have

[4:04:05] a signal now on 20 going through there. And we have, you know, every little bird

[4:04:12] you go through, you go down to 45 miles an hour. And we don't have any of that.

[4:04:16] So anyhow, I just want you to think about those things when you think about

[4:04:22] Highway 87, 287, you know, and on down, you've all seen

[4:04:29] the increase in all this. So we c, you know, if anybody wants to go over there

[4:04:35] and look at all the skid marks, you know, at every one of these little

[4:04:39] places and these three named subdivisions, you know, we can't even

[4:04:43] get out of our road, you know, sometimes, you know, and then you add

[4:04:47] the semi traffic that we already have on Reynolds Pass. So it's just, you know,

[4:04:56] take a look at what can happen and will happen. So consider all these things

[4:05:01] please. Thank you.

[4:05:15] Paul up here. Uh my name is Pat Pova. I'm going to read a letter from George

[4:05:22] and Sila Bible that live on Reynolds Pass. He's having cataract surgery

[4:05:27] today, so he could not attend. Effective zoning is not a restriction on

[4:05:32] property rights. It is the community's shared commitment to protecting the

[4:05:37] values, resources, and quality of life that make rural living desirable.

[4:05:44] his statement in support of the CIZD CIZD. We strongly support zoning in very

[4:05:51] rural areas of Montana because it is one of the best tools we have to protect the

[4:05:56] land, open space and rural way of life that people came here to preserve. In

[4:06:01] places where homes, ranches, farms, streams, wildlife habitats, and scenic

[4:06:06] views are closely tied together. One poorly [clears throat] placed

[4:06:10] development can affect many neighbors for generations.

[4:06:15] Player fair zoning helps prevent incompatible uses from being placed

[4:06:20] where they do not belong while still allowing responsible growth that

[4:06:25] respects the land, protects nearby property owners, and keeps the

[4:06:29] community's rural character intact. Zoning also creates

[4:06:35] real local benefits for the community. It helps protect the roads. wells,

[4:06:39] emergency services, schools, and volunteer fire resources

[4:06:43] that rural residents depend on every day. So growth does not create costs or

[4:06:49] safety problems the community is not prepared to hand. It supports good

[4:06:53] neighbor relationships by reducing conflicts over noise, traffic, water

[4:06:59] use, and incompatible activities.

[4:07:04] Thoughtful zoning gives everyone a clearer expectation,

[4:07:08] a clearer expectations, protects property, private property values,

[4:07:13] strengthens local decision making, and helps preserve the community's identity.

[4:07:19] In a rural Montana community, zoning is not about stopping change. It's about

[4:07:24] making sure that change happens carefully, responsibly,

[4:07:28] and in a way that benefits both current residents and future generations.

[4:07:34] I'll submit this from George and Sadilla. They live at the

[4:07:40] south end of Madison Valley uh in the shadows of Horn Mount.

[4:07:46] Uh I submitted this letter to the commission on May 28th. I just thought I

[4:07:51] would reread it. This is from my wife and I today for people in the audience

[4:07:57] probably have not seen it. Dear county commissioners, our name is Pat and

[4:08:02] Ginger Pova. We are property owners at south end of Reynolds Pass. We're

[4:08:07] writing to let you know our support for the citizen and n initiated zoning

[4:08:12] districts of Analopee Basin, Sheep Mountain, Pongghorn Meadows, and Big

[4:08:17] Horn Crossing. Our property is located in the CIZD of Analopee Basin.

[4:08:24] Our CICD was submitted on April 14th, 2026 at the

[4:08:29] regularly scheduled Madison County Commissioners meeting. The Reynolds Pass

[4:08:34] area has historically been agricultural. This area is also a major wildlife

[4:08:40] corridor for several species.

[4:08:45] Reynolds uh the concern of unregulated growth in

[4:08:49] very is very real and needs to be thought through very carefully. As an

[4:08:54] example, surface water is very scarce on the pass

[4:08:58] and most wells are very deep. We have one of the few surface springs on the

[4:09:03] pass and its flow rate has diminished over the last several years.

[4:09:08] Uh in previous years on a good winter, the spring would flow from near the east

[4:09:14] end of our property, which is close to the Forest Service boundary

[4:09:19] under the highway. It has not flowed under the highway in about 15 years now.

[4:09:25] It soaks into the ground before it gets there anymore. It barely makes it

[4:09:29] halfway down. The Madison River is already

[4:09:33] overcrowded. Having uncontrolled development would further exacerbate the

[4:09:37] issue of maintaining the worldass fishing that we have as a wildlife

[4:09:42] corridor. The el deer and analopee have a tough enough time in the annual

[4:09:46] migration in the spring and fall. We took out the woven wire fence on our

[4:09:50] property years ago and put in fencing that the analopee can go under in a

[4:09:56] smooth top wire that the alpha deer can jump.

[4:10:02] We also drop our fences in the fall to help with their migration. This fence

[4:10:07] works very well with the cattle that we run during the summer. We just pulled

[4:10:11] them off last week. We would prefer the inclusion of public

[4:10:16] lands, but would be agreeable if they were moved. The number one priority

[4:10:19] would be adopting the CIZD to help protect the path from unregulated

[4:10:24] development. for many other valid reasons that others will and have

[4:10:30] expanded on. We appreciate your time and dedication to all of us in Madison

[4:10:36] County and hope you consider the adoption of the CIZD.

[4:10:41] One last thing I'd like to mention that most people probably are not aware of,

[4:10:45] and I can't speak professionally to it, but there's a lot of unmarked trucks

[4:10:51] rolling through 287 and 87 with multiple more axles than your standard 80,000 GBW

[4:10:59] semi. And they're by a very large carrier. And they're all marked

[4:11:03] dedicated. And if you look at the number of axles on those trailers, something's

[4:11:08] going through here that is obviously very secret, potentially very dangerous.

[4:11:13] Might have to look into it. Thank you.

[4:11:20] Is there an opportunity to share media or is that not here? Sure.

[4:11:28] If you join the meeting microphone off you

[4:11:43] what what name

[4:11:51] right

[4:12:13] Okay, it's going to make me reopen that and rejoin before I can allowed to do

[4:12:17] that. Um I I intend this to be my last time um speaking and I appreciate the

[4:12:23] opportunity to speak and I want to speak now to Analope Bas is that Analope Basin

[4:12:27] is the hearing we're talking about now is um if you go look at the Castro or um

[4:12:33] Analopee Basin uh you will see that um most of the the properties that

[4:12:40] boundary Idaho and Montana to my observation are are out oftowners. um

[4:12:46] New Orleans uh trustees. Now, no objection to that. Part of our

[4:12:51] community. I love that people come here and it's their vacation home. Um my

[4:12:55] concerns related again and pulling forward my comments from other other

[4:12:59] hearings um relate to what is the representation that the statute is

[4:13:04] relying on that 60%. How much of this is for people from out of town that aren't

[4:13:09] aware of the situation? Has there been enough time for the opposition to mount

[4:13:13] like some campaign to say, "Hey, dear locals that are in that organization,

[4:13:19] with respect to to to K, I'm I think that she has done a a fair job in in in

[4:13:24] bringing that in, but I am concerned that that 60% is not representative, and

[4:13:28] it would be a shame if locals had to pay the price of somebody from far away

[4:13:34] voting otherwise." Um uh and I'm not going to be able to bring

[4:13:39] this in fast enough, so I apologize. Okay. I intended to to to show in in the

[4:13:46] uh as a kind of response to I missed what Kay was saying earlier, but there

[4:13:49] is in here um in the the PDF documents and I got way too many

[4:13:57] tabs open to be able to do this, but there is on page I think it's page 19

[4:14:02] related to Analope Basin. It talks about

[4:14:07] page page 34 which is also page 19 section C conditional use. That is the

[4:14:12] section that I was referring to and I wish I could find it and I'll guess I'll

[4:14:16] just draw your attention to that which talks about there would be need to be a

[4:14:20] conditional use permit and so I guess my point is is those are additional

[4:14:23] incomprehensib I wouldn't have today. So those are in there from what I

[4:14:27] understand. Um the the the

[4:14:33] piece that I want to just read and continue on from the Thomas Payne piece

[4:14:37] relates to this situation here where we can choose as a community to to pull

[4:14:41] together as a community or we can choose to give up our rights to to our local

[4:14:45] government. So S society is produced by our wants and government by our

[4:14:50] wickedness. The former produ promotes our happiness positively by uniting our

[4:14:54] affections. The latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one

[4:14:58] encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a

[4:15:01] patron, the last is a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing. But

[4:15:05] government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil. In its worst case,

[4:15:10] an intolerable one for which we might when we suffer or are exposed to the

[4:15:14] same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a

[4:15:17] government. Our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means

[4:15:20] by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence.

[4:15:25] The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of powers of paradise. For were

[4:15:30] the impulses of conscious clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man was need no

[4:15:34] other lawgiver but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender

[4:15:40] up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest.

[4:15:44] And this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case

[4:15:47] advises him out of two evils to choose the least.

[4:15:51] Yes, we live in a society that requires rules. Yes, things are growing. Yes, we

[4:15:57] want to preserve our area. Yes, we're coming together as a community. I think

[4:16:01] we can do that as a community and not have to give it up to the the legal

[4:16:08] um incumbrances that will last for generations. And and the the last point

[4:16:13] I want to make is related to the your commissioners have been

[4:16:19] petitioned to avoid inaction because something must be done. But you also

[4:16:24] have to be concerned about the ills that will happen because of action that will

[4:16:29] require further action. And as evidence of that, I bring what was an unsolicited

[4:16:36] um offer full price times six for my property, which is no longer concluded

[4:16:42] in the zones apparently. And I don't know what that means. If somebody was

[4:16:46] trying to buy a boat, I don't know if it means that they saw that I was

[4:16:49] gerrymandered out and they're like, "That's an attractive property." I don't

[4:16:52] know if they thought I was in and then the values went up. But in any case,

[4:16:56] dated um guess I don't know what this is dated. This is this is just within the

[4:17:01] last week. Somebody who has been sending me letters since I bought the property

[4:17:07] has thought to offer me, you know, some meager tens of thousands for my

[4:17:12] property. And I'm like, "No, it's beautiful. I'm keeping it." and now

[4:17:15] they've given me a a substantially increased offer for my

[4:17:21] property. I submit that that's going to happen to the spaces in between the

[4:17:26] moment that this is passed and that the reason why this was sent to me is

[4:17:29] because they're aware of the meeting that's happening today and it will be

[4:17:32] the catalyst that will cause the things that everybody is concerned about. And

[4:17:36] whether or not it's true, it deserves consideration of whether that might be a

[4:17:42] possibility. And I don't think there's time between now and September 15th to

[4:17:45] consider that. And with that, that's it.

[4:18:06] » Speakio again. Same drill. If and I do have one or two additional comments that

[4:18:10] are in

[4:18:16] I just feel compelled to uh address a couple of things that have come up today

[4:18:20] that I feel an obligation to respond towards clear. Um [clears throat]

[4:18:25] I'm not aware of anything in the regulations that would prevent someone

[4:18:28] from building a home on their lot in any way, shape or form. And I I think Kay

[4:18:34] addressed that earlier that we've been very careful about that and that this is

[4:18:39] a large commercial development focused issue. My wife and I came here 12 years

[4:18:45] ago and we bought our property into the

[4:18:49] Sheet Mountains. We are blessed that we have eight 20

[4:18:54] acre parcels. When we first came here 12 years ago, we have an improvement on

[4:18:59] one. We said, "Gee, what could we do with

[4:19:02] these other seven parcels?" And every week that we were here and

[4:19:07] every additional week after that that we went, we learned more and more about

[4:19:11] what Montana is all about. Yes, we're not from Montana. I was born and raised

[4:19:17] in Brooklyn, New York. I'm a city street kid. I've been here for 12 years now. I

[4:19:23] have learned more about this most magnificent land and what it has and

[4:19:28] what it means. And I am so motivated to do everything

[4:19:32] that we can within reason to make sure that we can keep this wonderful,

[4:19:36] beautiful environment the way it is. And large commercial development is in

[4:19:41] conflict with that goal. And with our seven parcels that don't have an

[4:19:46] improvement, every year that's gone by, we've become

[4:19:49] more and more committed to the fact that there is nothing that we should do with

[4:19:52] those parcels for commercial development. not not that we can't or

[4:19:56] even residential development to make money off of that

[4:20:01] because we realize the need for space in our area and the need for migratory

[4:20:06] opportunities for the wildlife. And I don't know if a city street kid

[4:20:10] can kind of understand that and really get that. I just hope all of us can

[4:20:15] understand that as well and find a way to make sure that these CIZDS get

[4:20:21] approved because they're restriction on large commercial development is the

[4:20:25] primary focus of them and that is what we desperately need in our valley. Thank

[4:20:29] you

[4:20:33] again Julie Delashia 101 she would like to submit uh comment from uh this person

[4:20:40] uh for to represent anal bas

[4:20:47] Thank you.

[4:20:59] » Afternoon. My name is John Tillworth. I'm a res I'm property owner at 175

[4:21:03] Jensen Road. I'm from Atlanta, Georgia. I flew in this week so that I could

[4:21:08] participate with this opportunity and also be a part of the the great part of

[4:21:13] Montana that I hope to be a resident here very soon. I want to tell you that

[4:21:17] uh being in Atlanta several thousand miles away both from FA and from Maddie,

[4:21:24] I have received numerous numerous over the last two years communications,

[4:21:29] postcards, emails, those types of things. I have been informed. I am

[4:21:34] confident other people have been informed. Um, I support this. I do hope

[4:21:39] that you make this uh a reality for us. It is a gorgeous piece of property that

[4:21:45] we need to maintain. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[4:21:55] Again,

[4:22:03] I'm Bob Garrett, ameritus [clears throat] professor from Montana

[4:22:06] State University, and I just would like to add the comments from the Fish and

[4:22:12] Wildlife Services, the two letters I referred to in the previous meetings

[4:22:18] to be applied uh to this consideration as well, and also my own personal

[4:22:24] statement. And again, I'm Robert Garrett. Address

[4:22:28] is 75 highway 287 South. Thank you.

[4:22:42] » Hi, I'm Pam Whitmore. Um I'm at 20 Tory Road in Cameron. We've been there for 43

[4:22:48] years. I just want to say that I support these um citizen initiated zoning

[4:22:53] districts and I would request that you do as well. Thank you.

[4:23:08] » My name is David Bricker. Uh I live at 867 Mway in Andis. My wife and I own

[4:23:13] another piece of property in the southern end of the valley. And I uh

[4:23:17] want to um tell you that we support citizen initiated zoning districts in

[4:23:23] this part of the valley to help protect the valley. Thank you.

[4:23:38] Chairman I, Commissioners Todd and Commissioner Gilman. Again, Justin

[4:23:43] Brownark 777 East Main Street hearing on behalf of the petitioning property

[4:23:47] owners, including those who are members of Preserve Mills Pass. Again, my

[4:23:52] comments today incorporate by reference the September 1st, 2026 letter in

[4:23:56] support of the CIZD, including the exhibit attached um which

[4:24:01] [clears throat] addresses the questions and comments regarding zoning.

[4:24:05] The state v the legislature conveyed the power to petition presenting to the

[4:24:08] citizens again and for the C CIZD 62% of signatures on the petition have been

[4:24:15] certified by the county with respect to the description of the

[4:24:20] proposed analopee basin district in the staff report. The percentages included

[4:24:25] there further support the adoption of the zoning district. If you take out the

[4:24:29] public land 86% have petitioned for the zoning district.

[4:24:34] This makes clear the CICD is in the public interest. And again, for the

[4:24:38] record, as I mentioned earlier, the plain language of the statute requires

[4:24:42] only the public interest or convenience be demonstrated to adopt the CICD, not

[4:24:47] both.

[4:24:50] The zoning regulation and the majority of the public comment does demonstrate

[4:24:53] the public interest requires the adoption of this proposed zoning

[4:24:56] district to protect the rural residential and agricultural character

[4:25:00] of the area and the existing development pattern and to account for the limited

[4:25:05] public services that you've heard about and the scarce water resources.

[4:25:10] As I also explained previously, to the extent that the staff report includes

[4:25:13] questions, definitions, and considerations beyond the scope of the

[4:25:16] statutes, those don't apply. And what must be

[4:25:21] considered is the public comment in support of the CICD. The Montana

[4:25:26] Constitution provides that the Montana the public has the right to expect

[4:25:30] governmental ages agencies such as the county to afford reasonable opportunity

[4:25:35] to participate, which you have done in abundance as I explained earlier. and

[4:25:39] state for the record again, the public participation statutes contemplate more

[4:25:43] than just allowing public comment. You must address the public comments in your

[4:25:48] decision making on the 15th and the pertinent facts upon which your decision

[4:25:52] is based in order to facilitate judicial review. As also addressed earlier, the

[4:25:58] zoning regulations are consistent consistent with the adopted growth

[4:26:02] policy which again for this area of the county requires support of zoning

[4:26:07] efforts. you have an obligation and are required

[4:26:10] by law to act in substantial compliance with that growth policy.

[4:26:15] In terms of the question regarding contiguity, again, the law is clear that

[4:26:20] does not interrupt the boundaries of the zoning district.

[4:26:24] And I'll close my comments by re reiterating

[4:26:29] again the state view the legislature has conveyed the power to petition for

[4:26:34] zoning to the people and the authority to adopt zoning to the county based on

[4:26:39] statute and in accordance with Montana case law.

[4:26:44] This these zoning statutes that further public health and safety must be

[4:26:48] liberally construed to effectuate their highly beneficial

[4:26:52] objective which is adopting zoning. And again, while you have some discretion,

[4:26:56] that discretion must be exercised within the boundaries of statute. And you need

[4:27:00] not go down the rabbit hole of questions not included in statute nor

[4:27:05] unsubstantiated claims about administration and enforcement.

[4:27:09] Again, the [clears throat] county has the authority to levy for that. So this

[4:27:12] is no justification stated again. You have the authority to

[4:27:15] adopt the CIC and arguably based on the comments you've heard in the record and

[4:27:21] the public comment submitted in advance of that you have an obligation to do so

[4:27:26] and a decision not to do that argue arguably would be so lacking in fact and

[4:27:32] foundation as to be an abuse of discretion. The petitioners and land

[4:27:36] owners in Analopee Basin have met their burden for the statute

[4:27:40] and the petitioning owners respectfully request that you adopt this Analopee

[4:27:44] Basin citizen initiated zoning district and regulation. Thank you.

[4:27:54] » Hi againro from Sageway here Cameron. Um

[4:28:02] I just really quickly want to go back to the statute. Um it is true that they

[4:28:09] have met the threshold uh for the petition and that is something that is

[4:28:13] afforded to these communities to our communities as citizens here right we

[4:28:18] have the power to petition you as the commissioners but to say that you don't

[4:28:22] have discretionary authority is wrong. Um, according to the statute

[4:28:26] specifically, I'm just going to read it. Subject to the provisions of subsection

[4:28:30] 5, whenever the public interest or convenience may require and on petition

[4:28:35] of 60% of the affected real property owners in the proposed district, the

[4:28:39] board of county commissioners may create a planning and zoning district and may

[4:28:45] appoint a planning and zoning commission consisting of up to seven members. So

[4:28:49] that inclusion of may gives you the discretionary authority. It is not an

[4:28:52] abuse of discretion for you to ask the question why these restrictions, why

[4:28:57] these boundaries, why these specific zoning districts. We are not saying that

[4:29:02] zoning as a whole is bad. We are not saying that we are opposed to reasonable

[4:29:06] rules. We are not saying that we want commercial development. None of us do.

[4:29:11] Literally, we are all united in purpose in that regard. We do not have to be at

[4:29:16] cross purposes. Our questions and our reservations stem from kind of the fine

[4:29:21] print of this regulation. You know, there is a lot that is included within

[4:29:24] these regulations that doesn't address commercial property. There are things

[4:29:28] about, you know, conditions on non-conforming uses, conditions on

[4:29:31] non-conforming properties. If you aren't in a property for a year, you lose your

[4:29:35] grandfathered status. And I don't see personally what that has to do with

[4:29:40] commercial development or highdensity residential development. So I just want

[4:29:44] to encourage you as the commission to understand that you have the

[4:29:49] discretionary power. You have the ability to ask for amendments and to ask

[4:29:53] for analysis and to ask for a very thorough picture before you adopt an

[4:30:00] imperfect regulation. >> Thank you.

[4:30:12] Smith 141 Oak Meadows Ranch Road. I will resubmit my comments from previously,

[4:30:18] but I wanted to just take a moment also to continue on a little bit with um

[4:30:26] so $3 Ranch was purchased over the course of about five years and there's

[4:30:32] three contiguous properties that were all combined. Um the purpose of that was

[4:30:36] for grazing to support agriculture and also to support migratory corridors and

[4:30:42] wildlife. Uh on August 13th at 2:39 or PM, not that it made an impression on

[4:30:50] me, I got a phone call from our weed spreader saying, "There's a lightning

[4:30:56] strike and now I see smoke. What do I do? Don't call me. Call 911."

[4:31:02] So that began the Horn Creek fire and it burned 3,000 acres on the ranch. And it

[4:31:10] was the most terrifying thing I've ever been through. And it was a day much like

[4:31:17] today, a red flag day. 40 plus mph winds, 90 degree weather.

[4:31:24] we have a fire unit on the ranch and we quickly responded but we were just a

[4:31:30] small drop in the bucket so to speak and it you know no through no fault of

[4:31:36] anyone else's it was at least an hour before the county was able to respond

[4:31:41] and then DNRC came in and the forest service and it was a full-blown fire

[4:31:47] started on the south ridge of the horn burned over into a basin and basically

[4:31:52] almost burned over fire crews and they had to pull back.

[4:31:57] Myself and another neighbor, because I'm not one to stand around twiddling my

[4:32:03] thumbs, we asked the sheriff's department if it would be okay if we

[4:32:07] went preemptively doortodoor in the residential area across the highway and

[4:32:12] alerted people. Obviously, they could see the fire, but gather your things,

[4:32:16] gather your pets, be prepared to leave. Um,

[4:32:21] the fire almost jumped the highway and really the only thing I think that

[4:32:26] caused it to not jump the highway was A, it burned into a pasture that was grazed

[4:32:31] and b we had a ditch that was full of water. As water becomes more and more

[4:32:38] scarce, if we're unable to fill our ditches and

[4:32:43] also unable to fill our ponds, which the helicopters are dipping out of heavily,

[4:32:48] I don't know that they would have been able to stop that fire.

[4:32:53] If uh if we hadn't been able to graze that because we have no water on the

[4:32:58] ranch, that grazed pasture would not have stopped the fire and it could have

[4:33:03] been a much bigger outcome. And it terrifies me to think what could have

[4:33:08] happened. So again, we are protected by easement, but

[4:33:14] what happens across the highway and on surrounding properties is vitally

[4:33:19] important for us. So thank you very much.

[4:33:31] online

[4:33:48] in this interreum. I don't think I did a motion to incorporate written comment

[4:33:52] for this hearing. >> Yeah,

[4:33:54] » let's do that. So, I may I make that motion now.

[4:34:00] » Second, you have one first to hand up.

[4:34:06] » Go ahead, Carly. >> Hello. Um, good afternoon. My name is

[4:34:12] Karly Mosfin and my family has owned about 23 acres um in this area since

[4:34:18] 1989. I wanted to start out by saying that I

[4:34:22] understand and support the intent behind protecting the rural character of this

[4:34:26] area. I don't want to see large commercial developments, resorts or

[4:34:31] dense development change um what makes this place special either. But I am

[4:34:37] concerned that in trying to prevent that kind of development, these regulations

[4:34:40] may unintentionally restrict longtime property owners like

[4:34:44] my family. Since we've held this land for nearly four decades, we haven't

[4:34:49] purchased it recently with plans to develop it commercially, but we've been

[4:34:52] saving money in the hope to someday build a few modest family cabins where

[4:34:56] our children and future generations could come together and enjoy this

[4:34:59] property. I'm particularly concerned because my family situation may

[4:35:03] eventually require me to divide the existing property with an aranged family

[4:35:07] member. I don't necessarily have control over whether that becomes necessary.

[4:35:11] Under the proposed regulation, I'm concerned that dividing an existing

[4:35:15] parcel of less than 40 acres could jeopardize my ability to build even a

[4:35:19] primary family cabin on the portion of the property that remains mine.

[4:35:23] I'm also concerned about the limitation on accessory dwelling units and

[4:35:27] accessory buildings on 23 rural acres having a few small family cabins, a

[4:35:32] garage or structure for snowmobiles and equipment is very different from

[4:35:35] creating subdivision or commercial development.

[4:35:38] I appreciate that the proposal allows short-term rental of primary drawing

[4:35:43] unit or ADU. I would like to retain the ability to occasionally rent our cabin

[4:35:48] when our family isn't using it to help offset the significant cost of

[4:35:51] maintaining and improving our property. What I'm asking is that you protect the

[4:35:56] purpose of this zoning without taking reasonable development rights away from

[4:36:01] existing property owners. Existing legal parcels, particularly parcels that have

[4:36:06] been held by families for decades, should remain buildable even if they are

[4:36:09] less than 40 acres. And if an existing parcel has to be divided because of

[4:36:14] family ownership circumstances, the resulting legal parcels should not

[4:36:18] suddenly lose their ability to have a primary residence.

[4:36:22] I would also ask that you consider allowing a reasonable number of small

[4:36:25] family dwellings and accessory structures based on acreage rather than

[4:36:29] treating a third small cabin on 23 acres as though it presents some concern of

[4:36:34] high density development. My family has been responsible stewards

[4:36:38] of this property since 1989. And we want the same thing that you do to preserve

[4:36:42] this beautiful rural area. We just want to make sure that preserving it doesn't

[4:36:46] mean that families who have held land here for generations lose the reasonable

[4:36:49] ability to use and enjoy it. Thank you for considering my comments.

[4:36:58] » Can you call a vote on incorporating the written comments, please?

[4:37:04] » Okay. a motion. >> I move to incorporate all written

[4:37:08] comments into the record for this hearing.

[4:37:10] » Okay. >> Second.

[4:37:12] » Okay. So, we have a motion second

[4:37:17] to this hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none. I'll call for vote.

[4:37:21] Commissioner Todd >> I

[4:37:26] vot. Motion carries. Any more public comment?

[4:37:34] Anybody online? Ryan? >> Yes, this is Dan Wank. I would only like

[4:37:39] to say that I'd like my comments from the earlier to be extended to the first

[4:37:43] and third discussions as well. Um and note that u my concern is is about the

[4:37:51] um everything that that I think we who appreciate and love this area is uh we

[4:38:00] don't want to do we need to take the measures or steps we need to take to

[4:38:04] make sure we're protecting um not only property rights but we're also

[4:38:09] protecting the resources for which probably attracted almost all of us to

[4:38:14] this area. Any

[4:38:22] more public

[4:38:42] [clears throat] hearing public comments?

[4:38:49] I move to adjourn the hearing. >> Second that.

[4:38:52] » So we have a motion second to hear discussion.

[4:38:59] I'll call for the vote. >> I

[4:39:06] move to set a decision date for September 15th.

[4:39:10] » Second that. Motion second. Final decision

[4:39:16] September 15th. Further discussion

[4:39:22] calls.

[4:39:31] » Thank you. Thank you.

09 02 2026 Madison County Part One Zoning Hearing

Transcript